Anastazia Schmid v. Steve McCauley, 825 F.3d 348

Anastazia Schmid was convicted in Indiana of murdering her boyfriend; jury found her “guilty but mentally ill” and she received a 55-year sentence with five years suspended.
After state direct appeal and collateral review (which took eight years and ultimately failed), Schmid filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254, outside the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. §2244(d).
When state collateral proceedings began, 178 days of the §2244(d) period remained; Schmid filed in federal court 15 months after the state proceedings ended, making the petition 278 days late.
Schmid (pro se) argued equitable tolling based on mental disability (PTSD/delusions) and delay by former appointed counsel in turning over case files (counsel allegedly produced files only in October 2013).
The district court denied tolling, finding Schmid failed to identify which documents she needed or explain how her disability prevented timely filing; the court did not address appointing counsel or hold an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether equitable tolling of §2244(d) applies	Schmid: mental illness and former counsel's delay prevented timely filing	State: Schmid failed to show which documents were needed or how illness prevented timely filing	Remanded: district court should appoint counsel and, if appropriate, hold evidentiary hearing to develop record on tolling
Whether district court should have appointed counsel before adjudicating tolling	Schmid: mental disability may prevent pro se litigant from explaining need for documents or evidentiary support	State: implied that Schmid could have explained delays without appointment	Court: appointment of counsel was appropriate under §3006A(a)(2)(B) to investigate mental condition and counsel files before ruling
Whether delay in counsel turning over files can justify tolling	Schmid: abandonment/delay by counsel kept her from accessing vital papers needed to prepare §2254 petition	State: district court found Schmid did not identify needed papers or explain their necessity	Court: factual development required — appointment of counsel to investigate and possibly hold hearing; lower court erred by deciding without developing record
Standard of review for equitable tolling determinations	N/A (procedural)	N/A	Court: typically deferential review but could not apply deferential standard because district court failed to develop the record; remand required

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling available for §2244(d) in extraordinary circumstances)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (stay-and-abeyance and tolling principles for §2244(d))
Socha v. Boughton, 763 F.3d 674 (7th Cir.) (inability to access vital papers may justify tolling)
Estremera v. United States, 724 F.3d 773 (7th Cir.) (approach to counsel delay and tolling inquiries)
Davis v. Humphreys, 747 F.3d 497 (7th Cir.) (equitable tolling analysis and evidentiary development)
Weddington v. Zatecky, 721 F.3d 456 (7th Cir.) (factors and process for considering tolling)
Simms v. Acevedo, 595 F.3d 774 (7th Cir.) (deferential appellate review of equitable tolling rulings)
Tucker v. Kingston, 538 F.3d 732 (7th Cir.) (deferential review standard for tolling determinations)