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… Read more
j. Appeals
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. … Read more
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… Read more
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… Read more
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… Read more
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… Read more
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… Read more
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… Read more
