Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02304/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02304-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Frank Winfield Anderson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, Director, Arizona

Department of Corrections,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2304-PHX-CKJ

ORDER

Respondent has filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Petitioner’s motion

for stay and abeyance and a motion to replace this extension motion with a substitute motion.

The Court will grant the motions but notes that withdrawal of the mandate from Petitioner’s

state court appeal will likely not moot Petitioner’s limitations issue. As stated by the Court

in its November 22, 2006 order, the Supreme Court observed in Clay v. United States, 537

U.S. 522, 527, 531 (2003), that finality for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) is

determined by reference to a uniform federal rule – either when the Court denies a petition

for certiorari or issues a decision on the merits, or when the time for seeking certiorari

expires. Thus, it appears that state law rules governing finality (such as issuance of a

mandate) are irrelevant for determining the trigger date for the AEDPA’s one-year statute

of limitations.

Based on the foregoing,

Case 2:06-cv-02304-CKJ Document 12 Filed 12/29/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Replace Motion for Extension of

Time (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall terminate the motion filed as

document number 10 as withdrawn by Respondent.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to extend time to file a

response to Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance of habeas corpus proceedings (Dkt. 11)

is GRANTED. No later than January 12, 2007, Respondent shall file a response to

Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance of Habeas Corpus Proceedings and shall also

address: (1) Whether equitable tolling of the § 2244(d)(1)(A) statute of limitations should

apply to the time period between the conclusion of Petitioner’s direct review and the

initiation of his PCR proceedings; and (2) Whether, if Petitioner’s petition is dismissed

without prejudice, a finding of equitable tolling in the instant matter is binding if and when

Petitioner files a new federal habeas petition following the conclusion of his state PCR

proceedings.

DATED this 29th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02304-CKJ Document 12 Filed 12/29/06 Page 2 of 2