129 F.4th 1057
7th Cir.2025Background
- Kevin Pettis, a convicted felon, was sentenced in 2016 by Judge Colin S. Bruce for illegal firearm possession.
- Pettis's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2018, Pettis learned that Judge Bruce had engaged in ex parte communications with the U.S. Attorney’s Office while his and other cases were pending.
- Pettis claimed both due process violations (bias) and statutory violations (failure to recuse) in a § 2255 motion, supported by the Federal Public Defender, but the motion was filed after the one-year statute of limitations expired.
- Pettis alleged ineffective assistance of counsel due to a Public Defender's error regarding the tolling agreement and timeliness of the statutory recusal claim.
- The District Court denied relief; Pettis appealed. While his appeal was pending, Pettis had been released from prison but was serving supervised release (and later re-incarcerated for violation of supervision).
Issues
| Issue | Pettis's Argument | U.S. Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due Process – Judicial Bias | Judge Bruce’s ex parte contacts created actual or apparent bias, violating due process and requiring resentencing | No evidence of actual bias or high risk of bias; Judge Bruce’s conduct did not affect Pettis’s outcome | No due process violation; no evidence of actual or presumptive bias |
| Statute of Limitations – Equitable Tolling | Public Defender’s misunderstanding and misleading letters were extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling | Attorney error is not an extraordinary external circumstance for equitable tolling; Pettis responsible for filing | No equitable tolling; claim time-barred |
| Federal Recusal Statute (28 U.S.C. § 455) | Judge Bruce’s conduct created an appearance of bias requiring recusal under § 455 | Untimely; not preserved by tolling agreement; attorney’s error not an external obstacle | Claim time-barred; court does not reach merits |
| Mootness – continued case/controversy | Claim not moot despite Pettis’s release because supervised release and possible resentencing remain at issue | Appeal moot due to completion of original sentence | Claim not moot; supervised release is part of the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (standing and mootness principles for habeas petitions)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (standard for judicial bias under Due Process)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (no constitutional right to counsel in postconviction proceedings)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling standard for habeas petitions)
- Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (petitioner bound by attorney's errors in postconviction context)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (supervised release is part of sentence for mootness analysis)