Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02751/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02751-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

1

 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2751

___________

Daniel B. Johnson, *

*

Petitioner - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Dean Mooney, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 10, 2007

 Filed: January 23, 2007 

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1

 dismissed Daniel B. Johnson’s petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 as untimely. We affirm.

In a bench trial spanning February and March 1998, Johnson was convicted of

four criminal sexual-conduct offenses between 1985 and 1988. In 1997, the state of

Minnesota moved to have him civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person

(SDP) and a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP). The laws under which Johnson

Appellate Case: 06-2751 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/23/2007 Entry ID: 3270259
-2-

was committed did not provide for a jury trial. Johnson demanded one under the

Minnesota Constitution, but the trial court denied the motion. After his conviction,

the state court ordered Johnson to be indeterminately committed as both an SDP and

an SPP. Johnson appealed the commitment to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which

affirmed. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied review on May 18, 1999. Johnson

did not petition the United States Supreme Court on this direct appeal.

 In August 2003, Johnson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in state

court. Johnson’s state habeas petitions failed, as did his petition for a writ of certiorari

from the United States Supreme Court.

On May 27, 2005, Johnson filed the current habeas petition in federal district

court. In dismissing his habeas petition as untimely, the district court held the time

between the conclusion of Johnson’s direct appeals and his application for

post-conviction relief in state court counted against the § 2244 one-year statute of

limitations.

Under § 2244, a petitioner has one year after his direct appeals are concluded

to file his federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). On appeal,

Johnson argues his filing of a state habeas petition should have reset the limitations

clock. 

We rejected this argument in Painter v. Iowa, 247 F.3d 1255 (8th Cir. 2001),

holding that “the time between the date that direct review of a conviction is completed

and the date that an application for state post-conviction relief is filed counts against

the one-year period.” Id. at 1256. The statute of limitations is tolled by the proper

filing of an application for post-conviction relief, but the district court correctly

included the period after the conclusion of direct review and before Johnson’s state

Appellate Case: 06-2751 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/23/2007 Entry ID: 3270259
-3-

 habeas application was filed in its calculation of the § 2244 time bar, see id. Thus,

Johnson’s habeas petition was properly dismissed as untimely. 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2751 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/23/2007 Entry ID: 3270259