Seventh Circuit holds that Wisconsin prisoner failed to exhaust claim and affirms denial of habeas petition
Terence L. Jannke v. Michael Gierach, No. 23-2485, 11/17/25
In yet another appeal that reiterates the hoops through which petitioners must jump, the Court rejects Jannke’s claims on procedural grounds and affirms.
Jannke was prosecuted in Dodge County for a Len Bias homicide. (p.3). Jannke was convicted after a jury trial and appointed counsel later filed a no-merit report. (Id.). Jannke filed a response alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and his lawyer addressed that issue in a supplement. (p.4). After the court of appeals accepted the no-merit report, Jannke tried to petition for review. (Id.) He filed his petition late, however, so SCOW dismissed the petition without further action. (Id.).
Jannke timely pursued habeas relief and initially claimed that he should be excused from defaulting his claims by not filing a PFR because “the Redgranite law librarian miscalculated his filing date, which caused him to miss the deadline.” (p.7). After his claim was denied in district court, the argument has been refined (the Seventh uses the term “shifted) and Jannke now argues to the Seventh “that a prisoner at Redgranite cannot access the law library in a meaningful way until the law librarian calculates the prisoner’s filing deadline and schedules his access accordingly. So, Jannke says, because the librarian miscalculated his filing deadline, he could not meaningfully access the law library until the evening his petition for review was due, which prevented him from preparing his petition and filing it on time.” (Id.). The Court refuses to consider this refined argument, however, because he failed to advance it in the district court litigation. (p.10). And, as it is well-settled that ignorance of filing deadlines is no excuse for failing to timely file the petition for review, his claim as advanced in the district court also fails. (Id.).