Where prisoner missed deadline to file habeas petition by nine days, district court did not abuse discretion in determining that prisoner’s schizophrenia and institutional barriers he encountered did not justify equitable tolling.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by Chief Judge Pamela Pepper, Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Samuel Moreland was convicted in Wisconsin state court of first-degree reckless homicide by delivery of a controlled substance. Moreland received a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment followed by 10 years’ extended supervision. Moreland unsuccessfully appealed his case, and his direct review ended in 2013 when the opportunity to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court expired. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Moreland had one year from that date to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court.

Moreland moved for collateral postconviction relief in Wisconsin state court 353 days after direct review of his conviction concluded. That process ended in March 2016 when the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied Moreland’s petition for review. For the purposes of Moreland’s federal habeas petition, all 586 days of the state postconviction process were tolled. Moreland filed a habeas petition in the Eastern District of Wisconsin in March 2016, 21 days after the conclusion of his state postconviction review. At that point, a total of 374 untolled days had elapsed since the end of Moreland’s direct review. The state of Wisconsin moved to dismiss, arguing that the petition was untimely. The district court granted the State’s motion, but it issued a certificate of appealability on the issue of equitable tolling. Moreland then appealed.

The appellate panel began by noting that Moreland claimed that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to toll the statute of limitations. Moreland had argued that he suffers from schizophrenia and that this impeded his ability to access the prison library and timely file his petition. The appellate panel noted that in the district court most of the evidence that Moreland presented concerning his diligence was from 2016, and that Moreland presented virtually no evidence of what he was doing to pursue his rights from August 2013 to July 2014, during the majority of the limitations period. The panel stated that reasonable diligence requires that Moreland prove he diligently tried to protect his rights over time, not just at time points near the end of the limitations period.

The panel then found that there was also reason to conclude that Moreland was mentally competent when he sought state postconviction review. The panel noted that Moreland’s letters to the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office in August 2014 and February 2016 show that he was aware of the applicable deadline in his case. The panel stated that Moreland’s letters displayed the mental competence to understand the statute of limitations and inquire about it, and that the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion when it decided that Moreland failed to diligently pursue his rights.

Finally, the panel found that Moreland had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable tolling. The panel stated that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it decided that Moreland failed to show how his schizophrenia actually impaired his ability to pursue claims. The panel further found that most of the institutional barriers cited by Moreland appeared to be fairly common prison experiences, and that, without further proof, it was difficult to conclude that Moreland suffered more than a few weeks delay. The panel therefore affirmed the decision of the district court.

Samuel Moreland v. Cheryl Eplett, Warden
No. 20-1600
Writing for the court: Judge Michael B. Brennan
Before: Judges Michael Y. Scudder Jr. and Amy J. St. Eve
Released: Nov. 15, 2021