Elliot Ray v. Marc Clements
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23725
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ray was convicted in Wisconsin of reckless homicide and related offenses based on coercive testimonial evidence; on direct appeal he challenged confrontation-clause testimony,
- this court held a prior § 2254 petition merited relief and remanded to address timeliness defense
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mailbox rule applicability | Ray argues mailbox rule tolls AEDPA clock | State argues no mailbox tolling because no timely receipt | Mailbox rule applies unless state clearly rejects it |
| Burden of proof on timeliness | Ray asserts state bears burden to prove untimeliness | State bears burden after threshold showing | Burden-shifting framework adopted: Ray must show timely delivery; state must prove untimeliness after evident showing |
| Whether district court clearly erred on credibility | Ray credibly testified he handed motion to Smith and produced receipts | District court found Ray not credible and rejected evidence | District court’s credibility findings reversed; Ray’s timing claim survives |
| Whether Ray timely delivered to Smith on April 27, 2004 | Ray delivered the motion to a prison official on that date | Prison policy and lack of corroboration negate timely delivery | Ray’s evidence supports timely delivery under mailbox rule; state bears burden to prove untimeliness |
| Effect of Wisconsin law on AEDPA tolling | Wisconsin the mailbox-rule-friendly state; Nichols endorses Houston rule | Wisconsin law may not recognize mailbox rule for tolling | Wisconsin endorses Houston mailbox rule for tolling under AEDPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (establishes the prison mailbox rule for pro se filings)
- Allen v. Culliver, 471 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2006) (burden-shifting approach to mailbox-rule tolling)
- Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2001) (diligence considerations in mailbox-rule context)
- Nichols v. Litscher, 635 N.W.2d 292 (Wis. 2001) (Wisconsin adoption of mailbox-rule certificate of mailing)
- Howland v. Quarterman, 507 F.3d 840 (5th Cir. 2007) (divergent state-law treatment on mailbox rule)
- Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006) (AEDPA tolling is an affirmative defense; burden on proponent)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (distinguishes statutory tolling from equitable tolling; mailbox rule context)
- Price v. Pierce, 617 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirms tolling analysis under § 2244(d)(2))