Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Sean T. Tatum. The court determined that the petition was untimely under the one-year statutory deadline and procedurally defaulted because Tatum failed to exhaust his claims before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Requests for equitable tolling and the actual innocence exception were denied as legally insufficient to overcome these procedural bars. Accordingly, the court declined to issue a certificate of appealability and ordered the action dismissed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the petition is timely under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1) and related equitable tolling doctrines
- Whether the petitioner exhausted state remedies under 28 U.S.C. §2254(b) and related procedural default doctrines
Holdings
- The petition is untimely and cannot be saved by equitable tolling because the petitioner failed to show extraordinary circumstances beyond his control.
- The petition is procedurally defaulted because the petitioner failed to present his claims to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and no exception applies.
Key quotations
“Only when the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled (or declined to grant a petition for review) has the convicted person exhausted his state remedies by invoking one complete round of Wisconsin's established appellate review process.” (at *14)
“This exception “applies to a severely confined category: cases in which new evidence shows ‘it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted the petitioner.’”” (at *5-6)
Factual background
Tatum was convicted of a gang rape based largely on DNA evidence found in a condom and victim identification. He later sought post‑conviction relief in Wisconsin state courts, which was denied by the circuit court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. He never sought review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He now alleges untimeliness, failure to exhaust, and claims of actual innocence.
Procedural history
Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the E.D. Wis. The court screened the petition, found it untimely and containing at least one unexhausted claim, and ordered dismissal.