My questions are; (1) does the Petitioner in this case (brief Summary below) fit the category of the Perkins case that just came down? (2) Can this Petitioner use the Perkins case to go back to the 7th Circuit Court
of Appeals to seek permission to file a Successive Habeas petition?
Regarding the case that came down from the United States Supreme Court on 5/28/2013,McQuiggin v Perkins in the US S. Ct. decision, the court said that Actual innocence, if proved, will justify federal habeas review even if procedural bar exist or if AEDPA statute of limitations has expired (Justice
Petitioner is Pro Se
Petitioner filed his first Writ of Habeas Corpus Pro se, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Federal District Court, Northern District of Ill. 2003,wherein the court DENIED his petition in 2004.
Petitioner filed a successive PC petition in 2006 in addition with his petition for leave to file after new evidence supporting Petitioner’s Actual Innocence was discovered. The trial
court improperly procedurally and/or erred in denying leave to file Petitioner’s petition after he clearly presented the gist of an actual innocence claim.
Petitioner’s appealed to Ill. Ct. of App. and then in the Ill. S. Ct. Petitioner’s State court remedies were exhausted. In 2008 Ill
S. Ct. DENIED petitioner’s Petition for Leave to Appeal without comment.
Motion for Request to file a Successive § 2254 to the 7th Cir. Ct. of App’s on 11/2009, Denied on 12/ 2009 asserting a stand-alone innocence claim in the district court. The lower court held that petitioner’s proposed petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2244 (b) (3) would be untimely, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § (d) (1) (D). Specifically, it held that the Petitioner had 1 year from discovery of the evidence to file his application pursuant to the opinion Johnson v Robert, 431 F. 3d 992 (7th Cir. 2005); Escamilla v Jungwirth, 426 F. 3d 868, 871-72 (7th Cir. 2005). Second it held that Petitioner waited more than three years from when the signed affidavit in support of his Actual Innocence which was signed on April 21, 2006 to file his §2244 (b) application on 11/ 10/ 2009 and the state court proceedings would not toll the statutory deadline’, pursuant to Martinez v Jones, 556 F. 3d 637 (7th Cir. 2009)
The Petitioner filed a Pro se Extraordinary Writ of Habeas Corpus to the US S. Ct, 5/ 2010. Habeas Corpus Denied 10/ 2010
The Questions that was presented in the 2010 Ex. Writ of Habeas Corpus was:
1.Whether transfer to the district court for a hearing pursuant to this Court’s original habeas jurisdiction is warranted in the exceptional non-capital case where the petitioner has raised A substantial case of Innocence, the lower Federal Courts refused to address his innocence in his first Federal Habeas petition and no State or federal court has held an evidentiary hearing to examine his new evidence?
2.When Federal Courts fail to consider a petitioner’s innocence in his first Federal Habeas petition, does the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of (1996) (AEDPA) preclude a stand alone Innocence claim, that was untimely but unknown to the pro se petitioner and not due to his culpable negligence, and raised for the first time in a Successive Habeas petition based on Newly Discovered Evidence?
Considering his Actual Innocence claim was clear the only reason he was denied was that he was untimely. He was denied the opportunity to file the Successive Habeas Corpus bases upon Newly Discovered Actual innocence Evidence due to untimeliness.