Holtz v. Kingston

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 4/21/06. Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 2 is denied as moot. (cc: petitioner)

Download PDF
Holtz v. Kingston Doc. 3 Case 2:06-cv-00485-JPS Filed 04/21/2006 Page 1 of 5 Document 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN R I C K A. HOLTZ, P e t it io n e r , v. PHIL KINGSTON, R e s p o n d e n t. C a s e No. 06-CV-485 ORDER O n April 12, 2006, Rick Holtz filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus p u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging his conviction of second-degree sexual a s s a u lt of a child under age sixteen, as a repeat offender. Holtz also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, even though he already paid the $5 filing fee. The c o u rt will review Holtz's federal habeas petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal R u le s Governing Section 2254 Cases. T h e court begins its review of Holtz's petition by noting that this is Holtz's s e c o n d federal habeas petition. On February 15, 2006, Holtz filed a petition for a w rit of habeas corpus which the court dismissed in an order dated March 21, 2006, b e c a u s e it contained an unexhausted claim. Holtz v. Kingston, Case No. 06-CV-186 (E .D . W is. March 21, 2006). Title 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A) requires a petitioner to get permission from the c o u r t of appeals before filing a second or successive habeas petition in the district c o u rt. See Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996). However, the Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:06-cv-00485-JPS Filed 04/21/2006 Page 2 of 5 Document 3 S u p r e m e Court held that, where a habeas petition is dismissed for purely procedural re a s o n s without substantive district court review, a subsequent petition is not a s e c o n d or successive one within the meaning of 2244(b). Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U .S . 473, 485-86 (2000) ("A habeas petition filed in the district court after an initial h a b e a s petition was unadjudicated on its merits and dismissed for failure to exhaust s ta te remedies is not a second or successive petition."); see also Stewart v. M a rtin e z -V illa re a l, 523 U.S. 637, 643-46 (1998) (Court permitted a claim previously ra is e d in a petition and dismissed as premature, but which was now ripe, to be ra ise d in a renewed petition). Given that Holtz's first petition was not adjudicated on its merits and was d is m is s e d for presenting an unexhausted claim, the court concludes that this petition d o e s not constitute a second or successive petition within the meaning of 2244(b). A s such, the court will proceed with its review of Holtz's federal habeas petition. T h e court continues its review by examining Holtz's petition to determine w h e th e r he has exhausted his state court remedies. The district court may not a d d re s s the merits of the constitutional claims raised in a federal habeas petition "u n le s s the state courts have had a full and fair opportunity to review them." Farrell v . Lane, 939 F.2d 409, 410 (7th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, a state prisoner is required to exhaust the remedies available in state court before a district court will consider th e merits of his federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(A). If a federal h a b e a s petition has even a single unexhausted claim, the district court must dismiss -2- Case 2:06-cv-00485-JPS Filed 04/21/2006 Page 3 of 5 Document 3 th e entire petition and leave the petitioner with the choice of either returning to state c o u rt to exhaust the claim ,or amending the petition to present only exhausted c la i m s . Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). A prisoner exhausts his c o n s titu tio n a l claim when he presents it to the highest state court for a ruling on the m e rits. Simmons v. Gramley, 915 F.2d 1128, 1132 (7th Cir. 1990). Once the state's h ig h e s t court has had a full and fair opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim, a prisoner is not required to present it again to the state courts. Humphrey v. Cady, 4 0 5 U.S. 504, 516 n.18 (1972). Here, it appears from the face of Holtz's federal habeas petition that he has n o t exhausted his state court remedies. Holtz lists four grounds for relief in his p e titio n , however each ground is exactly the same: "Ineffective Appellant [sic] C o u n s e l." The court informed Holtz in dismissing his prior federal habeas petition th a t this was an unexhausted claim. Holtz's new federal habeas petition indicates th a t he still has not presented his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel to the state courts. As such, the claim remains unexhausted and requires the d ism iss a l of his petition. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 510. It appears that Holtz may yet pursue a claim of ineffective assistance of a p p e lla te counsel through the W isc o n s in 's post-conviction relief statute. See W is . S ta t. 974.06(1); see also State ex rel. Rothering v. McCaughtry, 556 N.W .2 d 136, 1 3 9 (W is . Ct. App. 1996) (describing procedure for challenging the effectiveness of p o s t-c o n vic tio n counsel). -3- Case 2:06-cv-00485-JPS Filed 04/21/2006 Page 4 of 5 Document 3 A d d it io n a lly , the court notes that Holtz faces no immediate statute of lim ita tio n s deadlines. A state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment h a s one year from the date "the judgment became final" to seek federal habeas re lie f. 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A). A judgment becomes final within the meaning of S e c tio n 2244(d)(1)(A) when all direct appeals in the state courts are concluded fo llo w e d by either the completion or denial of certiorari proceedings in the U.S. S u p r e m e Court, or if certiorari is not sought, at the expiration of the 90 days allowed fo r filing for certiorari. See Anderson v. Litscher, 281 F.3d 672, 675 (7th Cir. 2002). T h e one-year limitation is tolled pursuant to the provisions in 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D). See Taliani v. Chrans, 189 F.3d 597, 598 (7th Cir. 1999). The o n e -y e a r limitation period may be equitably tolled if a state prisoner encounters s o m e impediment other than those covered in Sections 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D) and (2) w h ich prevents the filing of the federal habeas petition. Taliani, 189 F.3d at 598; see a ls o Johnson v. McCaughtry, 265 F.3d 559, 565 (7th Cir. 2001). Here, Holtz's judgment became final on October 26, 2005, 90 days after the W is c o n s in Supreme Court denied his petition for review. The one-year statute of lim ita tio n s began to run on October 27, 2005, and has continued to run while the h a b e a s petition has been pending in this court. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 1 6 7 , 181 (2001) (holding that 2244(d)(2) does not toll the limitation period during th e pendency of a federal habeas petition). Holtz has enough time to exhaust his remedies in state court and re-file his h a b e a s petition in federal court before the one-year statute of limitations runs, -4- Case 2:06-cv-00485-JPS Filed 04/21/2006 Page 5 of 5 Document 3 e s p e c ia lly considering that the time that Holtz spends exhausting his claims in state c o u r t does not count toward the period of limitation. 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2). B e c a u s e Holtz has sufficient time to file a post-conviction motion in state court and file a new habeas petition in federal court after he exhausts his appeals in state c o u rt, the court will dismiss this petition rather than stay it. See Freeman v. Page, 2 0 8 F.3d 572, 577 (7th Cir. 2000) (noting that district courts have discretion to stay a habeas corpus action while the prisoner exhausts state court remedies if dismissal c o u ld jeopardize the timeliness of a collateral attack). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Holtz's petition for a writ of habeas corpus be and the s a m e is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice so that Holtz may present his u n e xh a u s te d claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel to the state courts; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Holtz's motion for leave to proceed in forma p a u p e ris (Docket #2) be and the same is hereby DENIED as moot; Holtz has already p a id the $5 filing fee. T h e Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. D a te d at Milwaukee, W is c o n s in , this 21st day of April, 2006. B Y THE COURT: s /J .P . Stadtmueller J .P . STADTMUELLER U .S . District Judge -5-

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?