## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 8003 I N RE : C HILD ERIC M AXY, P etitio ner .

O n Peti ti on f or Perm is si on to Fil e.

S UB MI TT ED J AN UA RY 24, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 15, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . P ER C URIA M . Ch i l deri c M axy, a pri sone r fro m W i sco nsi n, i s s er vi ng a 60- yea r sent en ce forat tem pted m urder, bu rgl ar y-batt er y, and bai lj um ping. H e r ecei ved a fullr ound ofco l l ate ra lr evi ew bythe fed er alco urts , M a xy v. P o lla rd, N o. 05 C 479 ( W
. D. W i s. M ay 2, 2006 ) (d en yin g p et itio n fo r a w ritof h ab ea s c or p u s), M axy v. P o lla rd, N o. 06

- 2571 ( 7th Ci r. S ept. 16 , 20 06) (d enyi ng a cer ti fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty) , and hi s fi rs t a pp l i cati on und er28 U
. S. C. § 2244(b) f orper m i ssi on t o m ount a se c on d c o l l at er al a tt ac k w as d en ied , M a xy v. Thu rm er, N o. 09-1282 (7th Cir. Feb. 24, 2009).2 N o. 12

- 8003 N ow bef or e the co urt ar e paper s M axy l abel s a m ot ion, in w h ich h e info rm s us th at h e int en d s t o fi le a se co nd § 2 244( b) a ppl i ca ti o n. M ax y e xpl ains tha t th e appli cati on wil lbe unti m el y b ecause the pri son l i m i ts hi s use of the copy m achi ne, ther eby del aying his ab il i ty to c o m pl y wi ththe r ules of th i s ci r cui t. M ax y a sk s us to excuse the unti m el i ness of the f or thcom in g a p pli cati on a nd to o rderthe pri son to al l ow him expanded use o fth e co p i e r . H e d o e s n o t, h o we v e r, d i s c l o s e th e c l a i ms he wishes to br i ng in a seco nd peti ti on f ora w ri t o f habe as c o r pus o rthe do cument s he i s unabl e to o bt ain. W he n r e v i e wi ng a n a pp l i c a t i o n f o r a utho r i z a t i o n to file a s ec on d or s u c c es siv e c olla te ra l at ta c k, th e t im eliness rul es that gov er n the und er l yi ng co l l ate ra lat tack

— § 2 244( d) in the case o fa peti ti on f ora w ri t o fhabea s co r pus a nd § 2 25 5( e) f o rmot i o ns t o v ac at e ( th e cor ol l ar y forfedera lpri sone rs )

— ge n er ally ap p ly. Johns on v. R o bert, 431 F.3d 992 ( 7th C ir. 2005). B ut M ax y’s r eque stt o f o r g i ve the untim el i ne ss o fhi s f o r th co m i ng appli cati on i s pre m atur e. There i s no p ossibl e way t o apply the t i m el i ness rul es w hen w e don’ t e ven know th at th e p ap er s w ill be la te ; M ax y m a y p ro p os e a cla im th at re l i es on a new rul e a nnounced w i thi n one yea r of th e p ap er s, see§ 2244 ( d)(1 )(C ), o r he m ay be abl e t o sh ow a sta te -c re at ed im p ed im en t th at w as lift e d w ith in on e y ea r of filin g, see§ 2244 ( d)( 1) ( B). I f, o n the othe r h an d , th e p ap er s a re l a t e a n d h e re q u es ts eq u ita b le toll ing, w e hav e no w ay of know ing ifthe as-yet u n d e term i ne d l en g tho fthe de lay w i l lb e r ea so nabl e g i ve n the const ra i nts he al l ege s. A n anal ysi s o fti m eline ss m ust w ai t forthe papers to w hi ch the questi on a pp l i es.N o. 12

- 8003 3 M ax y a lso req u es ts an ord er d ire c tin g p ris on offic ials to a llow hi m expanded use ofa copy m achi ne so that he can fi l e a n appli c at ion t hat co m pli es w i th the r ule s o f th i s ci r cui t co ur t. Altho ug h th e pl ea di ng s ar e vague re ga rd in g t h e s p ec ific d oc u m en ts h e is h av in g t ro u b le produci ng, Ci rcuit R ule 22
. 2( a) r equi re s M axy t o su b m i t c op ies of n u m er ou s le ga l d oc u m en ts from h is pr i o rc a s e s , a nd F e de r a lR ul e o fApp e l l a t e P r o c e du r e 2 1 ( d) re quir es hi m to fi l e a n or i gi naland thr ee copi es of the a pp l i c a t i o n. We un de r s t a nd thi s p a r to fMax y ’ s p l e a di ngs a s a r equest f orr el i efag ai nst the pri son’ s a l l ege d i nfr i ngem ent o fhi s r i ght o facc ess to the cour ts. Pr i so ne r s ha ve a funda m en ta lr i g hto fa cc es s to the cour ts that pri sons m ust f aci l i tat e bypro vi ding l ega l as sis ta n c e. B ound s v. Sm ith , 4 30 U.S. 81 7 ( 19 77 )
. The r i g ht o fa cc es s, howev er, i s no t “a n abs tr ac t fr ee st an di ngr i g ht to a l aw l ibra ry or l ega l assi sta nce. ” Lew is v. C a sey, 51 8 U
. S. 34 3, 35 1 ( 1996 ) . Instea d, pri sons ar e obl i gat ed to as si sto r, puta no the rway, may no t i m pi ng e o n a pri sone r’ s e ff or ts to pursue a l ega lcl ai m at tack i ng, as re lev an t h er e, h is c rim in al jud gm en t. C a sey , 5 18 U
. S. at 355. M ax y’s pap ers ad eq ua tely al lege t ha t the prison ’s l i m i tat i on o n hi s use o fa copi eri s i m peding hi s abi l i ty to pur su e a cl ai m a g ains t hi s co nv i ct i o n. But to sa ti sf ac to r i l y st at e a cl ai m f o r an i nfri ng ement of the ri ght of acces s, pri sone rs m ust al so al l ege an ac tu al inj u ry . C a sey, 51 8 U.S
. at35 3; O r t i z v. D o w ney, 56 1 F
. 3d 66 4, 67 1 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ) (“T h at righ t [t o a c c es s c ou rt s] is vi ol ate d w hen a pri sone r is dep ri ved ofsuch a cces s and suffer s a ctuali nj ury as a r esul t. ”)
. That i s, they4 N o. 12

- 8003

m ust al l ege that som e acti on by the pri son h as frustr ate d o r i s i mpe di ng a n a t t e mpt t o b r i ng a no nfr i v o l o us l ega l c laim

. C hristo ph er v. Ha rbury, 53 6 U.S
. 40 3, 41 5 ( 2002 ) ( “[ E]ve n i n f or w ar d-l oo ki ng pri sone r cl ass acti ons to r emov e r o adb l o ck s to futur e l i ti g at i o n, the na m ed pl ainti ff m ust i den ti fy a ‘ no nfr i vo l o us , ’ ‘ ar g uabl e’ unde r l y i ng c laim .”); M ars hal l v. Knight, 44 5 F. 3d 965, 96 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) (“[T ]he m er e deni alo facc ess to a pri son l ibra ryo r to othe r l ega lm ate ri al s i s no t i tse l fa vi ol ation o f a pri sone r’s r i ghts; hi s r i ght i s t o acces s the courts , an d on ly i f the defe nd ants’ conduct prej ud i ces a pot enti al l y m er i tor i o us ch al l en g e to th e pr i so ne r ’ s co nv i ct i o n [or] se nten ce . . . has t h is ri gh t been de nied

. ”); O liv er v. Fa uv er, 118 F. 3d 17 5 ( 3d Cir

. 19 97) ( ass um i ng tha t del ay caused b y t h e re tu r n t o p ris on er of h is leg al m ail w as an im p ed im en t to acces sing th e co u r ts; no inj ury b ecau se p ap ers w er e i n f a c t a c c ep te d an d ad d re ss ed by th e c ou rtin th e u nd e r l y i ngl a ws ui t )
. R e l i e ff o rthe de ni a lo fa cces s to th e c ou rt s i s i n te n d ed to rem ed y rig h ts d en ied in a se par at e ca se due t o the i m p ed im en t: “ [ T] he v ery po i nt ofr eco gni zi ng anyacc ess cl ai m is t o provi de effecti ve vi nd i cati on f ora separ ate and dis ti n ct r i ght t o see k j ud ici al r eli ef for som e w rong. . . . [ T ]he r igh t is an cil lary to t h e un d erlyi ng clai m , w ithou t w hich a plaintiff c an n o t h av e s u ffer ed inju ry by be in g s h u t o u t o f co u rt .” Ha rbury, 53 6 U.S
. at41 4- 15. I t i s here that M axy’ s cl ai m f ai l s. A l though he adeq u at ely alleg ed t h at p ris on ac tio n is fru st ra tin g h is att em pt to file a n appli cati on, he doe s no t info rm us o f th e unde r l y i ngl eg alc l ai m s fru st r at ed bythe de l ay . And i t i s th e unde r l y i ngc l ai m s he i nt en ds to pr op o se i n theN o. 12

- 8003 5 appli cati on that wil ldem onstra te w hetherhe ha s a n on friv olo u s, ar gu ab le c laim for a u th or iza tio n . C o m pa re M cCre ev. Gr i s s om , 65 7 F .3d 6 23, 62 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) ( “M cCree pu rs ued his appeal[ i n an underl yi ng § 1983 cas e ] ; we c o nc l ud e d, ho we v e r, tha t hi s c o mpl a i nt di d not st at e a cla im . W ith ou t a t e n ab le a rg u m en t t o p u rs u e in that sui t, M cCree cannot show prej ud i ce re sul ting from th e deni alo fhi s a cces s t o the [ pri son] l aw l ibra ry . ”) ( ci tat i on t o und er l yi ng d eci si on om i tte d). M axy’ s o m i ssi on m eans that he has n ot all ege d an actual i nj ury fro m the pr i son rul es l i m i ting hi s use o fthe copy m achi ne. T h er efo re , he d oe s n otst at e a cla im for th e d en ial of h is ri ght t o acces s the co urts and w e deny h is m oti on f or an o rderi nstr ucti ng the pri son to al l ow h im gr eat er acc ess to a cop ier. That M axy f ai l s t o sta te an acc ess cl aim d oes notcl ose th e d oor o n h is petition. W e can grant d iscretionary re l i effro m the re quire m ents ofci rcui t r ule s in approp ria t e c a se s. See M cN eil v. U nited Sta tes , 50 8 U.S
. 10 6, 11 3 ( 19 93 ) ( “Ou rr ul es o fpr o ce dure are bas ed o n the ass um pti on t hat l i ti gat i on i s no rm al l y c onducted by l aw yer s. . . . [ A nd w e] have hel d th at so m e procedural rul es m u st g i ve w ay because o fthe unique ci rcum sta nces ofi ncarc er ati on. ”) ( ci ti ng Houston v. Lack, 48 7 U.S
. 26 6 (19 88 )); GC I UEm p’ rRe t
. Fu nd v. Ch ica go Tr i b
. Co. , 66 F. 3d 862, 86 4 ( 7th Cir. 1 99 5) ( “[ B]eca use o fthe i m port ance ofquesti ons ra i sed o n appeal, the cour t [ m ay] o ver l oo k al l e g e d i n a d e q u a c i e s i n a n a p p e l l a n t ’ s a p p e n d i x a nd consi der the m er i ts ofan a pp eal .”). S e e also C ir. R . 2 (“In the inter es t of e xped i ti ng deci si on o r f oro thergo od cause, the court m ay suspend the r equi re m ents ofthes e6 N o. 12

- 8003 Cir cui t Rul es. ”)
. W e di scuss w hat co nsti tutes an a pp ro pr i at e ca se f o rthe e xe r ci se o fdi sc r et i o n fi r st i n the con tex t of C ircuit R ule 22.2 and then A p p ell ate R ule 21(d ). Cir cui t Rul e 2 2. 2 s tat es, ( a) A r equest und er28 U
. S. C. §2 24 4( b) o r the fi nal par ag r apho f2 8 U. S
. C
. § 2255
. . . musti nc l ude the fol low ing inform ation an d attac hm en ts, in this ord er:

. . . ( 4) Copie s o fal lo pini ons re nd ered by any sta te or federa lco urt previ ousl y r endered in the cri m i nal pros ecuti on, any appeal, and any col l ate ra lat tack

. ( 5) Copie s o fal lpri orpeti ti ons o r m oti ons f or c o l l a t e r a lr e v i e w. Rul e 2 2
. 2 ( e ) c o nc l ud e s tha t “ [ a ] n a pp l i c a nt ’ s f a i l ur e t o su p p ly th e in for m at ion an d d oc u m en ts req u ire d by th is r ul e wi l ll ea d the c o ur t to di sm i ss the a ppl i ca ti o n, b ut with ou t pr ej udi ce t o i ts r en ewa li n pr o perf o r m . ” The docum ent r equi re m ent c ove rs the spectr um a nd , as d em on st ra te d by th is c as e, co m p lian c e is es p ec i a lly di ffi cul t f o ri nc ar ce r at ed appl i ca nt s who are pr o ce eding p ro se . See C a sey, 5 18 U
. S. at35 5 ( ackno w l edgi ng l i m i tations incid e n t to i nc arcerat ion m aking li tigation m ore d ifficu lt); M cNei l , 50 8 U.S
. at11 3. In 1 996, wh en Ci rcui t Rul e 2 2. 2 was wri tte n, l ega l d oc u m en ts from clo s e d c a se s w er e n otrea d ily av aila b le to th e c ou rt s. O n c e t h e d ec isio n in a ca se be c am e fin al, the r e c o r d wa s se ntto anar c hi v e a nd n o te a s i l y r e t r i e v e d. One of the o ri gi nalpurposes o fsubse cti ons ( a) ( 4) and ( 5)N o. 12

- 8003 7

w as to f or ce a pp l i cants, w h o presum abl y had r eadi er acces s t o the p a pe r s fr o m t he i re a r l i e rc a s e s , t o p r o v i de the c ourtwith the i nfo rm ati on nece ssa ryto apply § 2 244(b) ( 1) , wh i ch pro hibi ts th e authori zati on o fpro posed cl ai m s that hav e pr evi ously bee n pres ented t o a co urt. Anoth e rg o a lo fs u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 5 ) i s t o a s s i s ti n the deter m i nati on of w hether an appli cant actual l y requ i re s au th o r i za ti o n t o pr o ce ed o n th e a ct i o n pr o po se d b y the appli cati on. Th e ru l es go ver ni ng wh o m ust obtain preapprovalto p ro ceed ar e intri cate and confusi ng ev en f o rl awy er s. And pr i so ners p ro ce edingpr o s e an d wi th o uta ny l eg al t r aini ngmay no t unde r st an d the l ega lr eperc ussi on o fan e ar l i erd ecis i on. I t i s no t unu sual f or a pri sone r to bel i eve he needs au th or i zati on w h en h e d oe s n ot
. See, e . g., Pa vlovs ky v . Va nN atta , 43 1 F. 3d 1063 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( ear l i erco l l ate ra lat tack expli ci tl y di sm i sse d w i th out prej ud i ce des pit e i ts d ecision on th e m erits); S h e p e ckv. U nited Sta tes , 15 0 F. 3d 8 00 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( ear l i erco l l ate ra lat tackwas su c c es sfu l); V

a lo na v. U nited Sta tes , 13 8 F
. 3d 693 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 8) ( pr i o rc o l l at er ala tt ack cha l l en g ed a di ffer en t so u rc e o f cu st od y); O ’C o nn o r v. U nited Sta tes , 13 3 F
. 3d 548 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( ear l i erc oll ate ra lat tackwas dis

m issed becau se th e crim inal case w as stillpen d ing). Since Rule 22. 2 w as adopted, technol ogi calad vances ha ve m ad e acce ssing p ap ers from earli er cases cons iderably easier. E lectronic fi ling an d storage of leg a l p ap ers fi l ed i n the federa lco urts i s no w the nor m and, thus, thos e paper s a re r eadi l y a vail abl e t o succes sorco urts
.8 N o. 12

- 8003

Ci rc ui tRul e 25 ( b) e xc us es unr epr es en t ed l i t i gan ts fro m the 1 electro nic filing requ irem en t.

3- 15- 12 Thus , f o re xa m pl e, we ha ve i nde pen den tly o bt aine d a nd re view ed the papers fro m M axy’ s ini ti alco l l ate ra lat tack and his fi rs t a p pli cati on. There f or e, we can sa y with ce r ta i nty tha t he r equi r es a uthorizati o n t o pr o ce ed o n a habeas co rpus peti ti on a tta cki ng hi s 6 0- yea r se n tence f or att em pted m urder, burg l ar y-batt ery, and bai lj um ping. Lik ew i se, wh en we re cei ve the for thcom i ng appl i cati on, we w ill be ab l e t o com pare i t a nd hi s e ar l i er ple ading s t o deter m i ne wh ether§ 2244 ( b) ( 1) pro h ibits au th o r i za ti o n. Technol ogi caladvances al so tak e ca re o f the re quir em en t t h a t in d ivid u als filing orig in al a c tio n s in th is cour t, l i ke a § 22 44(b) app l i cati on, m ust fi l e a n or i gi nal an d three cop ies ofth e ir p lead ings. Fed. R. A p p . P. 21(d ). Befo re el ectr oni c fi l i ng w as poss ibl e, the expense o f m aking suffi ci ent c op ies t o m ake the re cor d and fo r r ev i ew b y a pa ne lo fth ree judge s r i g ht ful l y fel lt o the l i ti gants
. N ow, how eve r, a si ngl e paperco py subm i tte d by a pro se pri sone r m ay be s canned and dis tr ibuted to 1 the c ourtatvi rtual l y no extr a co st. Underthe se c i r cumstanc es, we ar e co m f o r tabl e ex cusi ng M axy fro m co m ply i ng with R u le 22. 2( a) ( 4) and ( 5) an d A p p ella te R u le 2 1(d ). I TI SS O O RDER ED .