Marvin Carter v. Chris Buesgen, 10 F.4th 715

In July 2017 Marvin Carter pleaded guilty as part of a plea agreement in Wisconsin that included a promised 6-year sentence; the trial court instead imposed 9 years at sentencing.
Carter filed a timely notice of intent to pursue a § 974.02 postconviction motion; the public defender was appointed, but the trial transcript took ~10 months to be produced.
Carter’s counsel filed repeated extension requests (twelve total extensions by the time of appeal) in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals; the trial court and appellate court granted them, and no Wisconsin court decided Carter’s sentencing claims for over four years.
Carter filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in November 2019 raising (1) a Santobello plea‑breach claim and (2) sentencing based on inaccurate information (due process).
The district court acknowledged the ‘‘inordinate’’ delay but dismissed the § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust, directing Carter to try state court one more time and certifying appealability.
The Seventh Circuit concluded the state process was functionally unavailable/ineffective for Carter, treated the district court’s dismissal as functionally final, excused exhaustion, vacated the dismissal, and remanded for merits review.

Issue	Carter's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Appellate jurisdiction over district court’s dismissal (finality of an order "without prejudice")	The dismissal is functionally final because further state-court attempts are futile given 4+ years of stagnation.	Dismissal without prejudice is nonfinal; appellate review is improper.	Court exercised §1291 jurisdiction: the order was functionally final because requiring more state action would be futile.
2. Whether Carter is excused from exhausting state remedies under 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(1)(B)	State remedies are unavailable/ineffective due to extreme, state-caused delay and no state decision in any court for years.	State urged Carter must exhaust and that he bore responsibility for not complaining earlier; district court urged one final attempt.	Court held exhaustion is excused: Wisconsin's postconviction process, as applied here, is ineffective/unavailable to protect Carter’s rights.
3. Appropriate remedy for federal court	Carter asked the federal court to proceed to the merits of his §2254 claims.	State supported dismissal without prejudice and remand to state processes.	Court vacated the dismissal and remanded to the district court to consider Carter’s §2254 petition on the merits without requiring further state exhaustion.

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (recognizing remedy for state breach of plea agreement)
Jackson v. Duckworth, 112 F.3d 878 (7th Cir.) (excusing exhaustion when state process is ineffective)
Moore v. Mote, 368 F.3d 754 (7th Cir.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction where state remedies were realistically available)
Gacho v. Butler, 792 F.3d 732 (7th Cir.) (similar jurisdictional refusal where state proceedings were moving toward resolution)
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (explaining limits on exhaustion exceptions)
Hill v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1142 (7th Cir.) (functional‑finality test: whether the district court has finished with the case)
Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678 (7th Cir.) (appealability where futility made dismissal effectively final)
Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709 (7th Cir.) (futility shows finality for appealability)
Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (appealability of dismissal without prejudice directing arbitration)
Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229 (finality principle where district court has disposed of all pending issues)
Huusko v. Jenkins, 556 F.3d 633 (7th Cir.) (describing Wisconsin’s atypical postconviction/appeal framework)
Page v. Frank, 343 F.3d 901 (7th Cir.) (detailing Wisconsin §974.02 postconviction procedure)