Tria Evans v. Jeff Zmuda

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas directs Kansas state prisoner Tria Evans to show cause why her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition should not be dismissed with prejudice as untimely under AEDPA. The court provisionally grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis, substitutes Dona Hook as respondent, and denies the motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. Evans is given until June 30, 2026, to respond.

Holdings

1. The petition appeared untimely under AEDPA. Direct review ended when the ninety-day period for seeking United States Supreme Court review expired, causing the one-year limitation period to begin on November 5, 2021; even assuming statutory tolling for the state post-conviction proceedings from August 1, 2022 through May 20, 2025, the adjusted deadline was August 26, 2025, while the federal petition was filed on May 12, 2026.
2. Evans was given an opportunity to show that extraordinary circumstances beyond her control prevented timely filing and that she diligently pursued her claims; the court found no such circumstances apparent on the present record.
3. The actual-innocence gateway may permit consideration of an otherwise untimely habeas petition, but Evans must present new, reliable evidence not presented at trial showing that, in light of all the evidence, more likely than not no reasonable juror would have found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice because there is no constitutional right to counsel in a federal habeas proceeding and the interests of justice did not require counsel at the preliminary screening stage.
5. The warden of the facility where a state prisoner is confined is the proper respondent in a habeas challenge to present physical confinement, so Dona Hook was substituted for Jeff Zmuda.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the § 2254 petition appeared barred by AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
2. Whether Evans should receive statutory or equitable tolling sufficient to make the petition timely.
3. Whether Evans could invoke the actual-innocence gateway to overcome the apparent limitations bar.
4. Whether the court should appoint counsel at the preliminary Rule 4 screening stage.
5. Whether the proper respondent was the warden of the facility where Evans was confined rather than the named respondent.

Disposition

other