In Re Maxy
674 F.3d 658
7th Cir.2012Background
- Maxy is a Wisconsin prisoner sentenced to 60 years for attempted murder, burglary-battery, and bail jumping.
- He has previously pursued multiple collateral attacks: two habeas-related reviews in district court and a seventh circuit appeal denial of a COA; a second § 2244(b) petition was denied in prior proceedings.
- He now seeks to file a second § 2244(b) application and asks for tolling of untimeliness and expanded copier access to comply with circuit rules.
- Maxy argues prison copier limits impede timely filing of a second petition and requests an order expanding copier usage.
- The court must address (i) timeliness provisions for a second collateral attack and (ii) whether to relax procedural requirements given incarceration, while evaluating whether Maxy states an access-to-the-courts claim and, if not, whether discretionary relief is available.
- The court ultimately excuses certain Rule 22.2 and Appellate Rule 21(d) requirements in light of technological advances and Maxy’s circumstances, and denies an access claim due to lack of an identified injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second §2244(b) filing | Maxy seeks to excuse untimeliness | Timeliness governs if papers are late; premature to decide tolling | Timeliness analysis postponed pending filing; premature to rule on tolling |
| Access to courts claim via copier restriction | Copier limits impede pursuing a nonfrivolous underlying claim | No underlying nonfrivolous claim identified yet | No actual injury shown; no denial of access claim; dismissed as to copier relief |
| Discretionary relief from circuit rules | Rule compliance should be relaxed due to incarceration | Rules serve to route and screen petitions | Court may suspend requirements; excused Rule 22.2(a)(4)-(5) and Appellate Rule 21(d) in appropriate case |
Key Cases Cited
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (prisoners' right of access to courts requires adequate assistance; not an abstract library right)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (access claim requires actual injury; substantive link to underlying claim)
- Harbury v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) (injury requirement for access claims; relief tied to underlying claim)
- McCree v. Grissom, 657 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2011) (no prejudice without a tenable underlying claim)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (courts may excuse procedural rules in proper cases)
- Pavlovsky v. VanNatta, 431 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2005) (illustrates complexity of authorization requirements for prior collateral attacks)
- O'Connor v. United States, 133 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 1998) (earlier collateral attack may be dismissed for different reasons than merits)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (incarceration considerations in procedural rules)
- Casey v. Lewis, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (reiterates bounds on access and procedure for prisoners)