Anthony Weddington v. Dushan Zatecky
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16038
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Anthony Weddington was convicted in two separate Indiana trials (2003 and 2005) for multiple sexual and related offenses and received consecutive sentences totaling 133 years.
- Judge Tanya Walton Pratt presided over the 2003 trial (and ruled on a suppression motion related to a January 29, 2002 traffic stop); Judge Robert Altice presided over the 2005 trial that is the subject of Weddington’s federal habeas petition.
- Weddington raised ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims (trial and appellate), including failure to pursue a Fourth Amendment challenge to the same traffic stop; he also alleged counsel failed to contact an alibi witness (his wife).
- Weddington filed a state post-conviction petition in 2007; it was denied in May 2009 and he did not appeal. He filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in February 2011.
- In his federal petition Weddington alleged that while in disciplinary segregation the prison confiscated his legal papers (including his habeas filings) and withheld them for over a year, preventing timely appeal of his state post-conviction denial and timely federal filing.
- The district court (Judge Pratt) dismissed the habeas petition as time-barred and procedurally defaulted without reaching the merits; the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) | Judge Pratt previously presided over related 2003 trial and suppression ruling; her participation creates appearance of partiality | No objection below; mandamus required to preserve § 455 claim; prior involvement was limited and not over the 2005 trial | Court: Recusal required in habeas cases when judge previously presided over closely related state proceedings; remand to assign a different judge per Circuit Rule 36 |
| AEDPA statute of limitations (1-year) | Equitable tolling applies because prison officials confiscated his legal papers while in segregation, preventing timely filing | Record and prison affidavit dispute Weddington’s claim; district court found petition untimely | Court: factual dispute exists; equitable tolling may apply; evidentiary development required; cannot affirm dismissal for timeliness now |
| Procedural default / exhaustion (failure to appeal state post-conviction denial) | Confiscation of legal papers constitutes cause excusing default and may also show prejudice or miscarriage of justice; thus default can be excused | Weddington defaulted by not appealing; state argued no cause shown (did not fully litigate prejudice) | Court: Allegations could establish cause (and perhaps prejudice); state did not adequately develop prejudice argument; factual development required to decide default excusal |
| Remand and evidentiary hearing | Need factual findings on confiscation, access to materials, and prejudice to resolve tolling and default issues | District court dismissed without resolving factual disputes; state relied on its affidavits | Court: Vacated dismissal and remanded for further proceedings, including evidentiary hearing if necessary; reassign judge to avoid appearance of partiality |
Key Cases Cited
- Clemmons v. Wolfe, 377 F.3d 322 (3d Cir. 2004) (broad rule requiring recusal when a federal judge previously presided over the state trial at issue in a § 2254 petition)
- Russell v. Lane, 890 F.2d 947 (7th Cir. 1989) (petitioner entitled to habeas review by a judge who did not participate in the conviction)
- Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2000) (confiscation of a prisoner’s habeas petition and legal papers can justify equitable tolling)
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel requires showing of deficient performance and prejudice)
- Resendez v. Smith, 692 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for district court denial of habeas petitions)