On Point: 4. Procedure

7th Circuit decision; on habeas review of Wis. opinion No. 2005AP2599-CR

Habeas – Filing Deadline – Tolling

The District Court had authority to grant Socha’s pre-filing, pre-deadline request to extend the 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) deadline for his habeas petition, made on the ground of equitable tolling.

… First, there is no absolute bar imposed by Article III on judicial actions closely connected with a case or controversy that has not yet been filed.

2nd Circuit court of appeals decision

Federal Habeas (28 U.S.C. § 2254) – Filing Deadline – Brady Claim

The 2254 filing deadline is one year from the date the state-court conviction becomes “final,” subject to certain exceptions, including one which restarts the limitation period from “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence,” 28 U.S.C.

7th circuit decision

Habeas – Filing Deadline – DNA Motion as Tolling

Price’s postconviction motion for DNA testing in Illinois state court didn’t toll the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas deadline, and his habeas petition is therefore deemed untimely.

The court’s analysis relates to Illinois procedure. As will be seen, Wisconsin’s is meaningfully different and should yield a different conclusion. First, the obvious: subject to highly exceptional circumstances,

Alan Ward v. Deppisch, 7th Cir No. 08-2809, 07/23/2010

7th circuit decision, review of unpublished court of appeals decision

Habeas – Procedural Default

The state argues that Ward procedurally defaulted his claim because he failed to fairly present the Wisconsin courts with a federal issue, and the state courts ruled against Ward based on adequate and independent state law grounds. We disagree. A review of Ward’s postconviction motion before the state court shows that he fairly presented a federal issue.

seventh circuit decision; denial of rehearing and en banc, 10/28/10

Habeas – Filing Deadline

For purposes of the federal habeas 1-year statute of limitations, a state court’s decision to accept an untimely filing makes the postconviction review “properly filed” but it doesn’t make it retrospectively “pending” so as to toll the limitation period.

Griffith seeks federal habeas review of his state court conviction. The limitation provision requires filing within within one year of “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review,” 28 U.S.C.

Freddie L. Byers, Jr., v. Basinger, 7th Cir No. 09-1833, 7/9/10

7th Circuit decision

Habeas – Exhaustion

To exhaust a federal claim, a 2254 petitioner must have “fairly presented” it to the state court.

… We use four factors to evaluate whether a petitioner has “fairly presented” his claim: “1) whether the petitioner relied on federal cases that engage in a constitutional analysis; 2) whether the petitioner relied on state cases which apply a constitutional analysis to similar facts;

Holland v. Florida, USSC No. 09-5327, 6/14/10

Habeas – Filing Deadline – Equitable Tolling, Generally

The 1-year limitations period for filing an 18 U.S.C. §2254 habeas petition is subject to “equitable tolling”:

We have not decided whether AEDPA’s statutory limitations period may be tolled for equitable reasons. … Now, like all 11 Courts of Appeals that have considered the question, we hold that §2244(d) is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases.

Donald Calloway v. Montgomery, 512 F. 3d 940, No. 07-1148, 1/14/08

Issue/Holding: Where the Supreme Court has expressly declined to rule on the issue (or on one in a very similar) context) to the issue on habeas review, there is no clearly established precedent within the meaning of AEDPA.

Andrew Lockhart v. Chandler, 446 F.3d 721 (7th Cir 2006) (challenge to lack of knowledge of mandatory additional term of supervised release not cognizable) followed.

Allen A. Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir 2005)

Issue/Holding: AEDPA requirement of state court adjudication on merits requires neither “well-articulated or even correct decision”; state court need not offer any reasons, so that summary disposition would satisfy requirement. In short: it “is perhaps best understood by stating what it is not: it is not the resolution of a claim on procedural grounds.”

Followed: Joseph M.

Michael Allen Lambert v. Buss, 489 F.3d 779 (Nos. 03-1015 & 05-2610, 6/12/07)

Issue/Holding: A motion to recall the mandate is subject to successive-petition restrictions.