09-2947 Martin v. Bartow

Listen to this article

Habeas Corpus
Sexually violent persons

Prisoners committed under Wisconsin’s sexually violent persons law can bring challenges in federal court to their annual recommitment orders.

“Martin’s constitutional right to due process limits his civil commitment to the period during which he is ‘both mentally ill and dangerous, but no longer.’ Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 77, 112 S. Ct. 1780, 1784, 118 L. Ed. 2d 437 (1992). As soon as the State lacks ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that Martin meets both conditions, it must release Martin from custody. Id. at 80, 112 S. Ct. at 1786. It is likely for this reason that the Wisconsin statute provides for annual reevaluation and allows Martin to challenge his commitment at any time. See Wis. Stat. §§ 980.07, 980.09. Recognizing that Martin’s commitment is dependent on a finding that he is currently both mentally ill and dangerous, the district court accepted the parties’ conclusion that each state court order continuing Martin’s commitment or denying his challenge to such commitment constitutes a new judgment for purposes of AEDPA, and therefore starts a new statute of limitations period. We agree, as this seems to be the only logical conclusion. To hold otherwise would lead to one of two absurd results; either Martin could never challenge an order continuing his commitment that was entered more than a year after his initial commitment order or the statute of limitations applicable to his initial commitment order would never expire.”

Reversed and Remanded.

09-2947 Martin v. Bartow

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Hibbler, J.

Full Text