Alan Ward v. Deppisch, 7th Cir No. 08-2809, 07/23/2010 7th circuit decision, review of unpublished court of appeals decision Habeas – Procedural Default The state argues that Ward procedurally defaulted his claim because he failed to fairly present the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… Read more
4. Procedure
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… Read more
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… Read more
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… Read more
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… Read more
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
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
