district court decision, denying respondent’s motion to amend judgment granting habeas relief (post on original grant, here). Habeas – State’s Waiver The State’s failure to raise certain arguments, prior to grant of 2254 relief, waived its right to press those points on a Rule 59 motion to amend the judgment granting relief. The respondent in… Read more
j. Appeals
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
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
