Background
Kyle Millis, a state prisoner in Michigan, filed a federal habeas petition after his state postconviction appeal was administratively dismissed as untimely. He argued that the Michigan Supreme Court sent him a series of conflicting letters, including one stating his appeal was accepted for filing, which misled him into believing his federal filing deadline had not yet expired. The district court dismissed the petition as untimely, finding Millis was not diligent in pursuing his rights after receiving conflicting notices.
The court’s reasoning
The Sixth Circuit applied a de novo standard of review to the district court’s refusal to apply equitable tolling. The court found that the sequence of letters from the Michigan Supreme Court clerk’s office created a situation where a reasonably diligent petitioner could believe the appeal was accepted. The court noted that the last letter received by Millis explicitly stated his filing was complete and notified the government of this status. The court declined to place the burden on Millis to independently verify the accuracy of the court’s communications after receiving a letter confirming acceptance. Because Millis demonstrated that his arguments were sufficiently weighty to warrant a response from the state, the district court erred in dismissing the petition under Rule 4 without further proceedings.
Because it is not plainly apparent from Millis’s petition that he is not entitled to relief, we reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings.
Millis v. Rewerts, No. 25-1606 (6th Cir. July 9, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision prevents the summary dismissal of habeas petitions where a petitioner has been misled by conflicting official court communications. It reinforces that pro se petitioners are not required to constantly monitor court clerks for errors when the court itself issues contradictory status updates.