Rashada v. Weisner

• Decision Date: 20 January 2023
• Docket Number: 21-CV-292-JPS
• Parties: PRINCE F. RASHADA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL WEISNER, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

PRINCE F. RASHADA, Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL WEISNER, Respondent.

No. 21-CV-292-JPS

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

January 20, 2023

ORDER

J.P. STADTMUELLER, DISTRICT JUDGE

1. INTRODUCTION

On March 5, 2021, Petitioner Prince F. Rashada (“Rashada”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The Court will screen his petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings.

2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On June 13, 2016, following a jury trial in Milwaukee County Case Number 2015CF005529,^[1] Rashada was convicted of “1st Degree Child Sex Assault - Sexual Contact with Person under Age of 13” (Count One) and “1st Degree Child Sex Assault - Sexual Contact with Person under Age of 13” (Count Two).^[2] Rashada was sentenced to concurrent sentences for each count, for a total term of 7 years of confinement and 7 years of extended supervision.^[3]

1

Rashada filed two postconviction motions in the trial court. In one, he argued that the trial court had erred in not allowing in camera review of the victim's confidential medical and/or mental health records in violation of State v. Shiffra, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993), abrogated by State v. Green, 646 N.W.2d 298 (Wis. 2002). State v. Rashada, No. 2017AP2113-CR, 2018 WL 11430695, at *1 (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018). In the other, he argued for a new trial because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek an in camera inspection of the victim's confidential medical and/or mental health records. Id. The trial court denied his motions, and Rashada appealed only as to the first motion. Id. (“Rashada appeals, challenging only the decision to deny an in camera review of [the victim's] records.”). On November 21, 2018, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at *4.

Rashada appealed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Rashada alleges that he filed his appeal himself because his attorney filed a no-merit petition with the court. According to Rashada, he raised additional grounds for the first time in this petition for review, namely that (1) his postconviction counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to argue that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to fully investigate his case; (2) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of insufficiency of the evidence against Rashada; (3) his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise “meritorious issues centered on ‘plain and structural errors' in appeal court;” and (4) post-conviction counsel was ineffective by not objecting the “surprise presentation of inexclupatory [sic]

2

evidence.” ECF No. 1 at 3. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied review on March 14, 2019.^[4] State v. Rashada, 927 N.W.2d 142 (Wis. 2019).

On April 22, 2019, Rashada filed a state motion for post-conviction relief. Rashada claims that he raised the same four grounds as in his first trip to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. ECF No. 1 at 5. On April 23, 2019, the trial court denied this petition.^[5] On October 2, 2019, it appears that Rashada took this matter to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals via a habeas petition, and that court denied the petition, ex parte, on October 22, 2020; the court entered an order of remittitur on December 7, 2020.^[6] Rashada did not appeal the matter to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Now, Rashada seeks habeas relief on these same four grounds. ECF No. 1. He also adds a new ground: “no treatment required based on STATIC-99R evaluated by Dr. J. Schewda in which this evidence was absence during trial.” Id. at 10-11.

3. ANALYSIS

Rule 4 authorizes a district court to conduct an initial screening of habeas corpus petitions and to dismiss a petition summarily where “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Thus, Rule 4 provides the district court the power to dismiss both those petitions that do

3

not state a claim upon which relief may be granted and those petitions that are factually frivolous. See Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 414 (7th Cir. 1993). Under Rule 4, the Court analyzes preliminary obstacles to review, including whether the petitioner has complied with the statute of limitations, exhausted available state remedies, avoided procedural default, and set forth cognizable claims.

3.1 Timeliness

First, the Court considers the timeliness of the petition. A state prisoner in custody pursuant to a state court judgment has one year from the date “the judgment became final” to seek federal habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). A judgment becomes final within the meaning of § 2244(d)(1)(A) when all direct appeals in the state courts are concluded, followed by either the completion or denial of certiorari proceedings in the U.S. Supreme Court, or, if certiorari is not sought, at the expiration of the ninety days allowed for filing for certiorari. See Ray v. Clements, 700 F.3d 993, 1003 (7th Cir. 2012).

Here, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied Rashada's direct-appeal petition for review on March 14, 2019. Rashada did not seek certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, his judgment became final ninety days later, on June 12, 2019. Rashada then had one year in which to file his petition (i.e., until June 12, 2020). Rashada did not file his federal petition until March 5, 2021.

Importantly, however, the time during which his state postconviction matters pended is tolled of purposes of filing a federal habeas petition. Rashada filed his post-conviction motion on April 22, 2019. The trial court denied it the next day. Thus, Rashada received the benefit of one tolled day. On October 2, 2019, Rashada sought habeas relief from the

4

Wisconsin Court of Appeals. That petition was not resolved until December 7, 2020,when the court entered an order of remittitur. In total, 433 days of his statutory period is tolled. Thus, Rashada had until August 19, 2021 to file his federal habeas petition. His petition is timely.

3.2 Exhaustion and Procedural Default

A district court may not address grounds raised in a habeas petition “unless the state courts have had a full and fair opportunity to review them.” Farrell v. Lane, 939 F.2d 409, 410 (7th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, a state prisoner is required to exhaust the remedies available in state court before a district court...