Bill Conroy v. Scott Thompson, 929 F.3d 818

Conroy was indicted in Illinois (2004) and found competent to stand trial after a pretrial hearing; he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 30 years in 2007 and did not appeal.
Prison records from 2007–2008 show diagnoses of depressive and schizoaffective disorders but also a 2008 psychiatric report finding logical, coherent thought processes and fair insight and judgment.
Conroy filed a state postconviction petition in 2009 and additional state motions in 2014; he sought help from prison library staff and lacked funds for private help.
In 2016 Conroy filed a pro se § 2254 habeas petition in federal court (initially dismissed without prejudice for naming the wrong respondent, then amended with appointed counsel).
Conroy conceded his petition was filed after AEDPA’s one‑year deadline (finality June 7, 2007; deadline June 7, 2008) and argued equitable tolling was warranted due to mental limitations (illiteracy, emotional issues, schizoaffective disorder).
The district court denied tolling and a COA; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Conroy did not show extraordinary circumstances or the necessary causal impairment during the limitations period.

Issue	Conroy's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Conroy's petition is second or successive	N/A (argued procedurally proper)	First petition dismissal without prejudice counts as first; not successive	Not successive; appeal proper
Whether mental illness warrants equitable tolling of AEDPA deadline	Mental limitations (illiteracy, emotional issues, schizoaffective disorder) prevented understanding rights and timely filing	Records show competence findings and filings during limitation period; insufficient evidence of incapacitation	Denied; no extraordinary circumstance shown
Whether Conroy exercised diligence during limitation period	Argued inability to pursue claims due to mental state and lack of resources	Pointed to Conroy’s state filings and requests for counsel as evidence of capacity/diligence	Court did not reach diligence because extraordinary-circumstance element failed
Whether state-court competency finding is presumptively correct	Argued later deterioration made prior finding inapplicable	State relied on 2006 competency finding and 2008 psychiatric notes showing lucidity	2006 finding and 2008 records undercut Conroy’s claim of ongoing incapacity

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances and diligence)
Lombardo v. United States, 860 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2017) (abuse of discretion standard for equitable tolling review)
Socha v. Boughton, 763 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2014) (equitable tolling is rare; reserved for circumstances beyond litigant’s control)
Miller v. Runyon, 77 F.3d 189 (7th Cir. 1996) (mental illness justifies tolling only if it prevents managing affairs and understanding rights)
Mayberry v. Dittmann, 904 F.3d 525 (7th Cir. 2018) (petitioner must show mental issues actually impaired ability to pursue claims)
Obriecht v. Foster, 727 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2013) (requiring evidence of actual impairment during limitations period)
Davis v. Humphreys, 747 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 2014) (lack of legal knowledge does not justify tolling)
Pavlovsky v. Van-Natta, 431 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2005) (dismissal without prejudice for procedural defect does not make a later petition "second" or "successive")