Obriecht v. Foster
727 F.3d 744
7th Cir.2013Background
- Obriecht was convicted in Wisconsin (1999) and sentenced; probation was later revoked, leading to additional consecutive prison time.
- His convictions became final on March 17, 2002; AEDPA’s one-year limitation gave him until March 17, 2003 to file state collateral relief to preserve a federal habeas filing.
- He filed a federal habeas petition in Dec. 2002 that was dismissed for nonexhaustion; the district court warned he had until ~Mar. 17, 2003 to file state post-conviction relief.
- He retained attorney Janelle Glasbrenner, who (erroneously) told him the AEDPA deadline was tolled; she did not file by March 17, 2003 and later withdrew in June 2003.
- Obriecht, confined in a mental‑health facility, filed other state filings between 2003–2005 but did not file collateral relief for the 1999 convictions until June 20, 2005; he then filed federal habeas in 2007 and conceded it was untimely, seeking equitable tolling.
- The district court denied equitable tolling; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Obriecht failed to show an extraordinary circumstance or reasonable diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies to Obriecht's untimely habeas petition | Glasbrenner’s incorrect advice that AEDPA was tolled and Obriecht’s mental‑health condition prevented timely filing | Attorney error was ordinary negligence; Obriecht was capable and pursued other filings, so not diligent | Denied — no equitable tolling granted |
| Whether attorney misconduct here constitutes an "extraordinary circumstance" | Glasbrenner’s misadvice and withdrawal were egregious and prevented timely filing | Miscalculation/misunderstanding of AEDPA is garden‑variety negligence not extraordinary | Denied — attorney’s error was garden‑variety negligence |
| Whether Obriecht acted with reasonable diligence between deadline and 2005 filing | Mental‑health confinement and reliance on counsel prevented earlier action | He filed other state actions, was adjudicated competent, and gave no particularized showing of incapacity | Denied — failed to show reasonable diligence |
| Whether medical/segregation placement excuses delay | (Argued below) confinement impeded access to counsel/library | Record inconsistent on dates; Obriecht relied on counsel’s advice and did other filings | Not addressed as extraordinary on appeal; district court not abused in rejecting diligence claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances; garden‑variety attorney mistakes do not qualify)
- Griffith v. Rednour, 614 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2010) (attorney misunderstanding or miscalculation of AEDPA deadline is not extraordinary)
- Simms v. Acevedo, 595 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2010) (equitable tolling is extraordinary and rarely granted; review for abuse of discretion)
- Johnson v. McCaughtry, 265 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2001) (petitioner must exercise reasonable diligence to discover information necessary to timely file)
- Miller v. Runyon, 77 F.3d 189 (7th Cir. 1996) (mental illness tolls limitations only if it actually prevents managing affairs or understanding legal rights)