Anthony Bolton v. Kevwe Akpore, 730 F.3d 685

Bolton was convicted of first-degree murder in Illinois in 1997 and filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the conviction and lineup identification.
The state court record shows Smith identified Bolton in a lineup after initial testimony that officers may have directed the identification; multiple officers corroborated details of the event.
Bolton raised claims on direct appeal and in post-conviction proceedings concerning the lineup’s suggestiveness, Brady/Strickland issues, and an excessive sentence; the Illinois appellate court affirmed.
Bolton introduced Velcin Thomas’s affidavit in post-conviction proceedings alleging innocence and disputing lineup procedures and the availability of lineup photos; the trial court rejected Brady/Strickland claims and did not address the new evidence as innocence.
The district court denied the habeas petition under AEDPA; on appeal, the Seventh Circuit held the standalone suggestive-lineup claim was waived and the exhaustion requirement was not met, affirming the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Stand-alone lineup suggestiveness claim waiver	Bolton asserts the lineup was unduly suggestive.	State courts properly limited review to claims raised and did not consider a new standalone suggestiveness claim.	Waived; not raised in district court or state courts.
AEDPA exhaustion for the standalone claim	Bolton raised due process concerns about lineup suggestiveness.	State remedies not fairly exhausted for a standalone due-process claim.	Exhaustion not satisfied; claim not fairly presented through complete state review.
Procedural default and excuse	Bolton contends cause and prejudice or miscarriage of justice should excuse default.	Defaults cannot be excused; Thomas affidavit and other claims do not meet cause/prejudice or Schlup standard.	Procedural default not overcome; relief denied on the defaulted claims.
Scope of certificate of appealability	Certificate should allow broader claims related to lineup admission.	Certificate limited to the lineup-admission issue raised in Brady/Strickland context.	Certificate limited; other claims not before the court.

Pole v. Randolph, 570 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2009) (de novo review under AEDPA with exhaustion analysis)
Boerckel v. Perr, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (fair presentation requirement for exhaustion)
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004) (requirement to ‘fairly present’ federal claims in state courts)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (1999) (exhaustion requirement for federal claims)
Perruquet v. Briley, 390 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2004) (procedural default and exhaustion doctrine in the Seventh Circuit)
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (abstention and total exhaustion required)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence gateway to habeas relief following default)
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (lineup procedures and due process concerns)
Stovall v. Denno, 308 U.S. 293 (1940) (due process and pretrial identification procedures)