On Point: B. Federal

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.

Rufus West v. Schneiter, 485 F. 3d 393 (7th Cir. 5/4/07)

Issue/Holding: “we now join the other circuits that have considered this issue and hold that §2253(c)(1) requires a certificate of appealability for any appeal in a proceeding under §2255 or where ‘the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.’”

The court acknowledges that “(a) notice of appeal acts as a request for a certificate whether or not the prisoner files a separate application,”

Edmund Ingram v. Jones, 507 F. 3d 640 (Nos. 06-2766 & 06-2879, 11/14/07)

Issue/Holding: If a prison has a “legal mailing system,” and the inmate isn’t obligated to pay postage for legal mail, then the notice of appeal may be deemed filed when deposited in the system even without prepaid postage. However, “if a prison does not have a legal mailing system, the prisoner is required to show,

Dennis Thompson, Jr. v. Battaglia, 458 F. 3d 614 (7th Cir. No. 04-3110, 8/14/06)

Issue/Holding: Because (c)ounsel’s work must be assessed as a whole,” an ineffective-assistance claim is a single ground for relief for certificate of appealability purposes, though R. 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, does require that the petitioner specify all grounds for relief along with supporting facts.

Larry W. Myartt v. Frank, 7th Cir No 04-2115, 1/21/05Issue/Holding:

… AEDPA standards apply only to claims that were “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). In the instant case, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not address Myartt’s ineffective assistance claim, which is unsurprising because Myartt’s pro se filing failed to develop the claim or discuss relevant Sixth Amendment principles. In these circumstances,

Michael A. Sveum v. Smith, 403 F. 3d 447 (7th Cir. No. 05-1255, 3/31/05)

Issue/Holding: Denial of FRCP 60(b) motion to reopen, which was in effect a “mislabeled habeas corpus petition reasserting” previously rejected claim, required certificate of appealability. Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004) (district court’s dismissal of motion, on ground it is unauthorized successive collateral attack, constitutes final order within 28 U.S.C.

Alphonso Hubanks v. Frank, 392 F. 3d 926 (04-1043, 12/22/04)
For Hubanks: Robert J. Dvorak

Issue/Holding:

Habeas relief is appropriate pursuant to § 2254(d)(1) if the state court identified the right legal principle as determined by the Supreme Court but unreasonably applied that principle to the facts of the case. The standard for proving an unreasonable application of federal law, however, is more demanding than for proving an erroneous application of that law.

Alan O. Moore, Sr. v. Mote, 368 F. 3d 754 (7th Cir. No. 03-3213, 5/17/04)

Issue/Holding: Dismissal with leave to refile following exhaustion of state court remedies doesn’t support a notice of appeal:

Generally, this court has jurisdiction only to review final judgments, 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court’s order dismissing the case without prejudice is not final because it explicitly contemplates the court’s continuing involvement in the case ….This court has held that there are “special circumstances” under which the dismissal of a case without prejudice may constitute a final appealable order.

Clyde Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2003)

Issue/Holding: Requirement of certificate of appealability doesn’t apply to habeas challenge to state disciplinary proceeding, citing Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2002).

Rule reaffirmed: Edward D. Anderson v. Benik, No. 05-2323, 12/20/06 But for another circuit’s rejection of this approach, creating a potentially cert-worthy split,