786 F.3d 501
7th Cir.2015Background
- Steven Johnson was convicted in Wisconsin state court of multiple gun offenses and sentenced to 22 years.
- He filed an untimely direct appeal that the trial court treated as a § 974.06 postconviction motion; the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed on April 19, 2012.
- Johnson had 30 days to petition the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review but did not file; he applied to the prison Business Office for a small legal loan (up to $100/year) to cover filing costs and the request was denied.
- The Business Office denied the loan based on Johnson’s recent canteen spending and available deposits; DOC/DAI policy lists discretionary eligibility factors including spending patterns.
- Johnson then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court dismissed it as procedurally defaulted for failing to complete a full round of state review and refused to excuse the default based on the loan denial.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Johnson did not show the loan denial was an objective, external impediment that made timely filing impracticable and that federal courts should not be the first to interpret state prison loan policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procedural default should be excused for cause because prison officials denied a legal loan | Johnson: denial of loan (contrary to published eligibility criteria) was an external impediment that made timely petition impracticable | State/Wisconsin: loan program discretionary; denial reasonable given spending; no entitlement to subsidy; Johnson didn’t exhaust administrative or state remedies | Denied — loan denial did not establish objective external cause or make filing impracticable; default not excused |
| Whether federal habeas court can interpret state DOC/DAI loan policy to excuse default | Johnson: federal court may assess misuse of prison policy to find cause | State: federal court should defer; state courts/administrative remedies should decide state-policy interpretation first | Denied — federal habeas court cannot be the first to interpret state regulation/policy; concerns of federalism and comity prevail |
| Whether Johnson’s available funds were actually insufficient to file petition | Johnson: reliance on loan and alleged account withholdings left him unable to pay postage/copies | State: record shows $25.80 available; copies/postage likely affordable; no evidence funds were inaccessible | Denied — record does not establish actual inability to pay; Johnson didn’t prove the loan denial made filing impossible |
| Whether failure to use inmate grievance/administrative remedies forecloses claim of external interference | Johnson: claims based on written policy and Business Office action | State: Johnson never exhausted inmate complaint system or sought certiorari review of denial | Held: Johnson’s failure to pursue administrative/state review undermines claim; he caused his own default |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (federal habeas barred when state-court relied on independent and adequate state procedural ground)
- Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (cause-and-prejudice standard to excuse procedural default for external impediments)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (actual-innocence gateway to overcome procedural default)
- McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (discussion of "cause" requiring prevention of raising claim)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (procedural default and exhaustion principles)
- Richardson v. Lemke, 745 F.3d 258 (Seventh Circuit summary of fair presentation/one full round rule)
- Weddington v. Zatecky, 721 F.3d 456 (Seventh Circuit recognizing confiscation of legal materials can establish cause)
- Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107 (no constitutional entitlement to subsidy for civil filings)
- Moore v. Casperson, 345 F.3d 474 (reliance on legal precedent insufficient to establish cause when no external impediment)