Scheetz v. Weber et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part 21 Objection to Report and Recommendation. The South Dakota trial court file including the plea agreement and the sentencing transcript, if there is one, shall be provided to this Court on or before 9/4/13. Signed by U. S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 8/19/13. (SLW)
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AUG 19 2013
~~
*****************************************************************************
DARYL T. SCHEETZ,
Petitioner,
vs.
DARIN YOUNG, Warden 1; and
MARTY JACKLEY, Attorney General,
State of South Dakota,
Respondents.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CIV 13-4011
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
******************************************************************************
Petitioner Daryl T. Scheetz, an inmate at the South Dakota State Penitentiary, has filed a pro
se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 2254. Petitioner objects to the
Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Simko which recommends dismissal for failure
to timely file the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition.
Scheetz pled guilty to charges of aggravated assault and grand theft in Yankton County,
South Dakota. On July 31, 2007, Scheetz was sentenced to consecutive teons of 15 years for the
assault and 10 years for the grand theft. The South Dakota Supreme Court affinned the conviction
on April 28, 2008. A state habeas petition was filed on October 23, 2009, which was denied on
June 29, 2012. A certificate of probable cause was denied by the South Dakota Supreme Court on
November 16, 2012. This federal action was filed on January 28,2013 2 •
Scheetz claims inadequate representation by counsel in the sentencing phase. Scheetz claims
Darin Young became the Warden of the South Dakota State Penitentiary on May 24, 2013.
He has been substituted as the named Defendant in this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(d).
1
2This federal action was filed on January 28,2013, rather than January 25, 2013, the date
stated in the Report and Recommendation.
that the plea agreement was for concurrent sentences and when the sentencing judge announced
consecutive sentences, Scheetz's lawyer said nothing and did nothing despite Scheetz pointing out
to him that the sentence was in violation ofthe plea agreement. The current record does not establish
what the plea agreement was, nor does the record establish that a plea agreement was actually agreed
to by the parties, let alone adopted by the sentencing judge.
The Report and Recommendation calculates that from July 28,2008, until October 23,2009,
is 452 days, or 87 days past the one year filing deadline. Another 73 days passed after the South
Dakota Supreme Court denied Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Probable Cause on
November 16, 2012, until this Petition was filed on January 28,2013. This Petition is 160 days
beyond the one year statute oflimitations.
Petitioner in his Objections makes various claims including his lack of education as a high
school dropout and his lack of knowledge of the law. Although the question is one of equitable
tolling, those considerations are held to not warrant equitable tolling. Kreutzerv. Bowersox, 231 F.3d
460,463 (8th Cir. 2000); Cross-Bey v. Gammon, 322 F.3d 1012, 1016 (8th Cir. 2003).
Petitioner alleges in his Objections to the Report and Recommendation that he was put in the
Secure Housing Unit (SHU) or as he put it, the "hole" at Mike Durfee State Prison. Petitioner also
claims that his belongings including all his legal papers were placed in storage at that prison and that
62 days later he was transferred on January 31, 2009, to the South Dakota State Penitentiary, still
without any access to his property. While in the SHU Petitioner alleges he had no access to his legal
papers nor any law library. Once he got his property at the South Dakota State Penitentiary, his legal
papers were missing and remained missing for over 6 months until they were found at Mike Durfee
State Prison and forwarded to Petitioner at the South Dakota State Penitentiary.
July 28, 2008, is when Petitioner's South Dakota convictions became final. There is equitable
tolling from when Petitioner went into the SHU until when Petitioner's legal papers were returned
to him. The reason for the possible tolling is not that the conduct of the Defendant lulled the
2
Petitioner into inaction as the Petitioner has been reasonably diligent in pursuing relief Instead, the
question is whether extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner's control made it impossible to
file a Petition on time. Kreutzer v. Bowersox, supra, at 463. How "impossible" must it be?
Searching for appellate counsel is not enough for equitable tolling. Jackson v. Ault, 452 F.3d 734
(8th Cir. 2006). Lackofa transcript is not enough for equitable tolling. Jhadv. Hvass, 267 F.3d 803
(2001). Having been deprived of all legal papers is enough to warrant equitable tolling. With
equitable tolling for the period in which the Petitioner was without his legal papers, it is enough time
oftolling to prevent dismissal. The Court finds the Petition to have been timely filed due to equitable
tolling for the period indicated which Petitioner was deprived of all of his legal papers.
Petitioner also objects to the finding in the Report and Recommendation that Petitioner has
failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. On that issue, the Court
directs that the South Dakota trial court file including the plea agreement and the sentencing
transcript, ifthere is one, be provided to this Court on or before September 4, 2013.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
That the Report and Recommendation ofMagistrate Judge John E. Simko is
granted in part and denied in part.
2.
That the Objections of Petitioner to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation are granted in part and denied in part.
q
Dated this \ 1':aay of August, 2013.
;=u~~&
ATTEST:
JOSEPH HAAS, CLERK
BY:
,.:t.lIYUYlDl
__
ldwrence L. Piersol
United States District Judge
U~
DEPUT
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?