In re Maxy
Decision Date | 15 March 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 12–8003.,12–8003. |
Citation | 674 F.3d 658 |
Parties | In re Childeric MAXY, Petitioner. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Childeric Maxy (submitted), Waupun, WI, pro se.
Before POSNER, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Childeric Maxy, a prisoner from Wisconsin, is serving a 60–year sentence for attempted murder, burglary-battery, and bail jumping. He received a full round of collateral review by the federal courts, Maxy v. Pollard, No. 05 C 479, 2006 WL 5866671 ( ), Maxy v. Pollard, No. 06–2571 (7th Cir. Sept. 16, 2006) ( ), and his first application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) for permission to mount a second collateral attack was denied, Maxy v. Thurmer, No. 09–1282 (7th Cir. Feb. 24, 2009).
Now before the court are papers Maxy labels a motion, in which he informs us that he intends to file a second § 2244(b) application. Maxy explains that the application will be untimely because the prison limits his use of the copy machine, thereby delaying his ability to comply with the rules of this circuit. Maxy asks us to excuse the untimeliness of the forthcoming application and to order the prison to allow him expanded use of the copier. He does not, however, disclose the claims he wishes to bring in a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus or the documents he is unable to obtain.
When reviewing an application for authorization to file a second or successive collateral attack, the timeliness rules that govern the underlying collateral attack—§ 2244(d) in the case of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and § 2255(f) for motions to vacate (the corollary for federal prisoners)—generally apply. Johnson v. Robert, 431 F.3d 992 (7th Cir.2005). But Maxy's request to forgive the untimeliness of his forthcoming application is premature. There is no possible way to apply the timeliness rules when we don't even know that the papers will be late; Maxy may propose a claim that relies on a new rule announced within one year of the papers, see § 2244(d)(1)(C), or he may be able to show a state-created impediment that was lifted within one year of filing, see § 2244(d)(1)(B). If, on the other hand, the papers are late and he requests equitable tolling, we have no way of knowing if the as-yet undetermined length of the delay will be reasonable given the constraints he alleges. An analysis of timeliness must wait for the papers to which the question applies.
Maxy also requests an order directing prison officials to allow him expanded use of a copy machine so that he can file an application that complies with the rules of this circuit court. Although the pleadings are vague regarding the specific documents he is having trouble producing, Circuit Rule 22.2(a) requires Maxy to submit copies of numerous legal documents from his prior cases, and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(d) requires him to file an original and three copies of the application. We understand this part of Maxy's pleadings as a request for relief against the prison's alleged infringement of his right of access to the courts.
Prisoners have a fundamental right of access to the courts that prisons must facilitate by providing legal assistance. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977). The right of access, however, is not “an abstract freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996). Instead, prisons are obligated to assist or, put another way, may not impinge on a prisoner's efforts to pursue a legal claim attacking, as relevant here, his criminal judgment. Casey, 518 U.S. at 355, 116 S.Ct. 2174. Maxy's papers adequately allege that the prison's limitation on his use of a copier is impeding his ability to pursue a claim against his conviction.
But to satisfactorily state a claim for an infringement of the right of access, prisoners must also allege an actual injury. Casey, 518 U.S. at 353, 116 S.Ct. 2174; Ortiz v. Downey, 561 F.3d 664, 671 (7th Cir.2009) (). That is, they must allege that some action by the prison has frustrated or is impeding an attempt to bring a nonfrivolous legal claim. Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002) (); Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir.2006) (); Oliver v. Fauver, 118 F.3d 175 (3d Cir.1997) ( ). Relief for the denial of access to the courts is intended to remedy rights denied in a separate case due to the impediment: Harbury, 536 U.S. at 414–15, 122 S.Ct. 2179.
It is here that Maxy's claim fails. Although he adequately alleged that prison action is frustrating his attempt to file an application, he does not inform us of the underlying legal claims frustrated by the delay. And it is the underlying claims he intends to propose in the application that will demonstrate whether he has a nonfrivolous, arguable claim for authorization. Compare McCree v. Grissom, 657 F.3d 623, 624 (7th Cir.2011) () (citation to underlying decision omitted). Maxy's omission means that he has not alleged an actual injury from the prison rules limiting his use of the copy machine. Therefore, he does not state a claim for the denial of his right to access the courts and we deny his motion for an order instructing the prison to allow him greater access to a copier.
That Maxy fails to state an access claim does not close the door on his petition. We can grant discretionary relief from the requirements of circuit rules in appropriate cases. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993) () (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988)); GCIU Emp'r Ret. Fund v. Chicago Trib. Co., 66 F.3d 862, 864 (7th Cir.1995) (). See also Cir. R. 2 (). We discuss what constitutes an appropriate case for the exercise of discretion first in the context of Circuit Rule 22.2 and then Appellate Rule 21(d).
Circuit Rule 22.2 states,
(a) A request under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) or the final paragraph of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ... must include the following information and attachments, in this order:
...
(4) Copies of all opinions rendered by any state or federal court previously rendered in the criminal prosecution, any appeal, and any collateral attack.
(5) Copies of all prior petitions or motions for collateral review.
Rule 22.2(e) concludes that “[a]n applicant's failure to supply the information and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen v. Allsup
...(7th Cir. 1998). This is because a denial of access to the courts claim requires that an inmate show an actual injury. In re Maxy, 674 F.3d 658, 661-62 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Lewis c. Vasey, 518 U.S. 343, 353, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 125 L.Ed.3d 606 (1996)(An inmate's right "is violated when a pri......
-
Austin v. Novak, Case No. 14-cv-0608-bhl
..."Prisoners have a fundamental right of access to the courts that prisons must facilitate by providing legal assistance," In re Maxy, 674 F.3d 658, 660 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), abrogated by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996)), including by providing tool......
- Edwards v. Ill. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation
-
Avila v. Landgrebe
...copier would facilitate his work,Villatoro Avila has failed to show he has been prevented from filing his pleadings. See In re Maxy, 674 F.3d 658, 661 (7th Cir. 2012) . The extensive typewritten pleadings filed in this action alone belie his allegation that his efforts have been seriously i......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...where guards interfered with prisoner’s legal mail because prisoner failed to show injury or obstructed access to court); In re Maxy, 674 F.3d 658, 661 (7th Cir. 2012) (no constitutional violation where prisoner denied access to copier for printing court documents because prisoner failed to......