Pro bono client secures Seventh Circuit decision ordering federal review of postconviction claims after six-year state court delay
Client(s) Lindsey, Steven
Jones Day has secured a significant appellate victory for pro bono client Steven Lindsey in a Seventh Circuit appeal. In a precedential decision, the court held that Mr. Lindsey is entitled to federal review of his postconviction claims after enduring an inordinate six-year delay in Indiana state court proceedings—a delay the court found was attributable to the state's inaction and procedural failures.
Mr. Lindsey, who has consistently maintained his innocence regarding his underlying conviction, sought postconviction relief in Indiana state court in 2019, raising several constitutional claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and actual innocence. Despite his diligence in filing motions, seeking discovery, and attempting to move his case forward, the state court took no meaningful action for over six years, and state prosecutors missed deadlines and sought a series of appointments and withdrawals that delayed review.
Faced with this standstill, Mr. Lindsey turned to federal court to pursue his claims. The district court found that the delays Mr. Lindsey faced in state court had been reasonable and were his fault, so it dismissed his habeas petition and said that he needed to return to state court. On appeal, Jones Day argued that the delay was both inordinate and unjustifiable, and that the state's failure to act rendered its postconviction process ineffective to protect Mr. Lindsey's rights.
The Seventh Circuit unanimously agreed, vacating the district court's dismissal and remanding the case for consideration on the merits. The court found that the six-year delay—marked by the state court's persistent inaction and the prosecution's lack of diligence—was "intolerable" and excused Mr. Lindsey from the usual requirement to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal relief. The court emphasized that the state's judicial process must provide meaningful access and timely review, and that the breakdown in Mr. Lindsey's case failed to meet that mandate.
This decision not only vindicates Mr. Lindsey's right to a fair and timely review of his claims, but also sets an important precedent for federal habeas petitioners facing similar state court delays.
Lindsey v. Neal, 138 F.4th 1039 (7th Cir. 2025)
