COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

August 22, 2024

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and 

RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2023AP5 Cir. Ct. No. 2022CV2561

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT IV

STATE OF WISCONSIN EX REL. RONALD M. CARPENTER,

 PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

 V.

DANIEL WINKLESKI, WARDEN, AND KEVIN A. CARR,

 RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Dane County: NIA E. 

TRAMMELL, Judge. Affirmed. 

Before Blanchard, Nashold, and Taylor, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent 

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3). 

¶1 PER CURIAM. Ronald M. Carpenter, pro se, appeals a circuit court 

order that dismissed Carpenter’s petition for a writ of certiorari as untimely. 
No. 2023AP5

2

Carpenter argues that the court should have granted his motions to extend the time 

to file his petition, and that his deadline was equitably tolled during a period of delay

caused by obstacles within the prison system. For the reasons explained in this 

opinion, we reject Carpenter’s arguments and conclude that Carpenter’s petition was 

not timely filed. We affirm.

¶2 On April 4, 2022, Carpenter was issued a prison disciplinary conduct 

report. Carpenter was found guilty of the offense, and appealed within the prison 

inmate complaint review system. The Department of Corrections (DOC) issued a 

final decision dismissing Carpenter’s complaint on July 13, 2022. Accordingly, 

Carpenter’s deadline to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to obtain review of the 

disciplinary decision in the circuit court was August 29, 2022. See WIS. STAT.

§ 893.735 (2021-22)1(petition for certiorari review of a prison disciplinary decision 

must be filed within forty-five days of the date of the decision).

¶3 On August 8, 2022, Carpenter filed a letter in the circuit court asking 

the court to extend the deadline for Carpenter to file a petition for certiorari review. 

Carpenter asserted that the additional time was necessary based on his limited access 

to the prison law library and because the prison business office had returned 

Carpenter’s request for his six-month trust fund account statement, which he needed 

in order to seek waiver of the filing fee for his certiorari action. By letter dated 

August 17, 2022, the Dane County Clerk of Circuit Court’s Prisoner Litigation Staff 

Attorney wrote in pertinent part to Carpenter, “Your action has not been filed 

because you have failed to provide all documents required by Wisconsin law.” 

 

1

 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version.
No. 2023AP5

3

¶4 By motion dated August 31, 2022, Carpenter asked the circuit court 

for a fifteen-day extension of the time to file his certiorari petition. Carpenter 

asserted that he did not receive his three-strikes certification generated upon request 

by the Wisconsin Department of Justice until August 12, 2022. Carpenter also 

asserted that, on August 30, 2022, he attempted to obtain the copies he needed to 

file his petition (apparently from the prison law library) but that he was not provided 

complete copies and he received blank pages along with the copies he did receive. 

Carpenter asserted that, on August 31, 2022, the prison law librarian provided him 

with the incorrect forms for filing the certiorari action. Carpenter asserted that he 

would file the petition as soon as he was able to obtain the proper copies and forms 

from the prison law librarian, but that his receipt of that material was being delayed 

due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court did not respond to that motion. 

¶5 Carpenter filed his petition for certiorari review, petition for fee 

waiver, and other required documents after the August 29, 2022 deadline.

2

 On 

October 17, 2022, the circuit court dismissed the action as untimely. Carpenter 

moved for reconsideration, which the court also denied. Carpenter appeals. 

¶6 The issue here—whether Carpenter’s petition was timely filed under 

the statutes and controlling case law—presents a question of law that we review de 

 

2

 In his briefs on appeal, Carpenter does not state the date on which he placed his 

completed petition for certiorari papers in the prison mail system, and he does not cite anything in 

the record establishing that date. The appendix to Carpenter’s brief includes Carpenter’s affidavit, 

dated September 6, 2022, averring that Carpenter placed the petition and fee waiver petition with 

supporting material in the prison mail system. That affidavit does not appear in the record. The 

circuit court’s order denying reconsideration states that Carpenter’s material was received 

September 12, 2022, and Carpenter’s petition for fee-waiver was date-stamped September 13, 

2022. We note that Carpenter’s motion to extend the time to file his petition was dated August 31, 

2022, and stated that Carpenter intended to file his petition on a later date, as soon as he was able 

to obtain all necessary material. It is sufficient for purposes of this opinion that, based on the record 

and the parties’ briefs, there is no dispute that Carpenter did not file any of his certiorari material 

until after August 29, 2022. 
No. 2023AP5

4

novo. See State ex rel. Locklear v. Schwarz, 2001 WI App 74, ¶¶15-16, 242 

Wis. 2d 327, 629 N.W.2d 30. 

¶7 Under WIS. STAT. § 893.735, a petition for certiorari review of a 

prison disciplinary decision must be filed within forty-five days of the date of the 

decision. The deadline may not be extended, because the circuit court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction over a petition that is not timely filed. See State ex rel. Collins 

v. Cooke, 2000 WI App 101, ¶5, 235 Wis. 2d 63, 611 N.W.2d 774. However, the 

deadline may be tolled under certain circumstances, such as when circumstances 

beyond the prisoner’s control prevent timely filing. See, e.g, State ex rel. Walker 

v. McCaughtry, 2001 WI App 110, ¶¶13-16, 244 Wis. 2d 177, 629 N.W.2d 17. 

Under equitable tolling doctrines, “tolling begins when the documents over which 

prisoners have control have been mailed, and all of the documents over which 

prisoners have no control have been requested.” Id., ¶18. 

¶8 Carpenter contends that the circuit court should have granted his 

requests to extend the time to file his petition based on Carpenter’s lack of access to 

legal resources due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Carpenter also argues that he is 

entitled to equitable tolling of the time to file the petition for the days that Carpenter 

was waiting for the prison business office to provide him with the three-strikes 

certification, which Carpenter needed to submit in support of a petition to waive the 

filing fee for the certiorari action, and for other delays within the prison system. 

¶9 Because a circuit court cannot extend the time to file a petition for a 

writ of certiorari, see Collins, 235 Wis. 2d 63, we reject Carpenter’s argument that 

the court should have granted his extension motions. We turn, then, to Carpenter’s 

argument that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the deadline. 
No. 2023AP5

5

¶10 Equitable tolling begins only “when the documents over which 

prisoners have control have been mailed, and all of the documents over which 

prisoners have no control have been requested.” Walker, 244 Wis. 2d 177, ¶18. 

Here, Carpenter did not mail his certiorari petition or any supporting material until 

after the August 29, 2022 deadline had passed. We therefore reject Carpenter’s 

argument that he was entitled to tolling of the deadline while he was awaiting receipt 

of the three-strikes certification. See id., ¶18 (“By requiring prisoners to submit 

documents under their control within a designated period, the prisoner is treated 

equitably and the legislative intent is fulfilled.”).

¶11 To the extent that Carpenter is arguing that his certiorari petition and 

other required forms were not within his control based on his lack of access to 

adequate legal resources, we reject that argument because a similar contention was 

rejected in State ex rel. Tyler v. Bett, 2002 WI App 234, ¶2, 257 Wis. 2d 606, 652 

N.W.2d 800. 

¶12 In Tyler, we explained that “inadequacy of legal resources and 

assistance available to prison inmates” does not “provide[] grounds for tolling of 

the statutory deadline” to file a certiorari action. Id. Tyler argued that he was 

“entitled to ‘special consideration in meeting the filing deadline because he was 

faced with obstacles beyond his control which interfered with the processing of his 

petition.’” Id., ¶17. Tyler “essentially claim[ed] that he should be entitled to have 

the statute tolled because he did not have access to adequate legal resources and 

assistance at the institution where he [was] incarcerated.” Id. We rejected that 

argument, explaining that the tolling rule could not be used as a “remedy for alleged 

inadequacies in prison legal resources.” Id. 
No. 2023AP5

6

¶13 We recognized that “limitations on the access to legal resources and 

assistance undoubtedly impact the ability of pro se prisoners to properly file legal 

actions.” Id., ¶18. We also noted that “‘the fundamental constitutional right of 

access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation 

and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law 

libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.’” Id. (quoted source 

omitted). We pointed out that, “[t]o that end,” administrative rules require each 

prison to “‘maintain a law library and make legal materials available to inmates at 

reasonable times and for reasonable periods’” and that “the Department of 

Corrections ‘shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that adequate legal services are 

available to indigent inmates.’” Id. (quoted sources omitted). 

¶14 We explained, however, that claims of inadequate access to the courts 

and resources “are appropriately addressed through the Inmate Complaint Review 

System,” rather than as a basis to invoke “the judicially-created mailbox/tolling 

rule.” Id., ¶¶19-20. This is so, we explained, because the “efficacy of the 

[mailbox/tolling] rule depends on the ability of courts to easily resolve factual 

questions regarding who did what and when in relation to the mailing, receipt and 

processing of documents intended for court filing.” Id., ¶20. Thus, “[t]he rule was 

not intended to spawn, nor can it support, open-ended inquiries into the adequacy 

of prison legal resources, or discretionary judgments as to whether certain facts and 

circumstances warrant relief from statutory deadlines while others do not.” Id.

¶15 Thus, under Tyler, we must reject Carpenter’s asserted right to tolling 

based on his claims of inadequate legal resources within the prison system, 
No. 2023AP5

7

including lack of access to the prison law library and alleged law librarian error.

3

Those claims do not provide a basis to invoke equitable tolling. We affirm.

By the Court.—Orders affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)5. 

 

3

 Moreover, according to Carpenter’s August 31, 2022 motion to extend the time to file 

his petition, the law librarian error occurred on August 30 and August 31, 2022, after Carpenter’s 

August 29, 2022 deadline to file the petition.