Document: 542 U.S. 225 PLILER, WARDENv.FORD. No. 03-221. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 26, 2004. Decided June 21, Five days before the 1-year statute limitations under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA) would have run, respondent filed two pro se "mixed" federal habeas petitions—those containing both unexhausted exhausted claims—and motions to stay petitions while he returned state court exhaust claims. The Magistrate Judge gave him three options: (1) could be dismissed without prejudice refile after exhausting claims; (2) claims proceed with only or (3) contest Judge's finding that some were unexhausted. He chose first option respect one petition failed respond other. Federal District his prejudice. then in California Court, which denied. subsequently refiled as untimely AEDPA, see 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d), denied a certificate appealability (COA). Ninth Circuit granted COA, concluding initial timely 2244(d) later related back ones. determined although correctly concluded it did not discretion respondent's mixed petitions, acted on had chosen second renewed prematurely motions. It also held give specific warnings: first, consider unless amend them dismiss then-unexhausted second, if applicable, time barred, absent cause for equitable tolling, upon return opted all Held: was required provide warnings directed by Circuit. Pp. 230-234. (a) district courts must petitions. Rose v. Lundy, 455 509, 522. combined effect AEDPA's period is petitioner comes toward end period, dismissal result loss — including those already because expire during returns To address this, allows employ stay-and-abeyance procedure, involves any from original petition; remaining claims, pending exhaustion court; amendment add newly relate petition. Here, prisoner files petition, regarding procedure. But judges no obligation act counsel paralegal litigants. See, e. g., McKaskle Wiggins, 465 168, 183-184. Explaining details procedure calculating statutes are tasks normally properly performed trained counsel. Requiring advise litigants such manner undermine judges' role impartial decisionmakers. And run risk being misleading. encourage use when petitioner's best interest. force potentially burdensome task making case-specific calculation whether AEDPA has will court. Because calculations depend information contained documents do necessarily accompany judge's error thereby misinform petitioner. Respondent's argument requires given "the choice returning amending resubmitting present court," S., at 510, unavailing. which, practical matter, means follow these paths wants Nothing options equally attractive, advisements availability wisdom options. reliance Castro States, 540 375, misplaced, dealt Court's sua sponte recharacterization prisoner's pleading explain litigant's voluntary dismissal. (b) case remanded further proceedings concern been affirmatively misled. P. 234. 330 F. 3d 1086, vacated remanded. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. concurring opinion, post, p. STEVENS, an judgment, SOUTER, joined, 235. GINSBURG, dissenting BREYER, 237. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Deputy Attorney General California, argued With briefs Bill Lockyer, General, Manuel Medeiros, State Solicitor Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Pamela Hamanaka, Senior Donald E. De Nicola, Kenneth Byrne, Supervising General. Lisa Bassis, appointment 1216, brief respondent.* JUSTICE THOMAS Court. 1 Under 509 (1982), corpus In this case, we decide erred dismissing, pursuant Rose, giving particular advisements. hold failure make dismissals improper, need question presented, subsequent "improperly dismissed" 2 * On 19, 1997, five (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, signed prison authorities conviction for, among other things, conspiring murder John Loguercio attempting Loguercio's wife; first-degree conspiracy commit Thomas Weed. so exhausted. App. 51-52; 81-82. 3 option. Weed Judge. cases, proceeded filing summarily Respondent limitations, consolidated COA 2244(d). A divided panel Ford Hubbard, 1097 (2003). 4 Although supra, 522, Circuit's view, obligated route. 3d, 1099. inform was, according Appeals, prejudicial deprived "fair informed opportunity heard, ultimately considered merits." Id., 1100. 5 committed error, Circuit, failing that, consequently, barred refiling order Appeals' "definitively, intentionally," misled telling option, Ibid. Appeals should told effectively tolling applied. 1101. According regard "meaningful" between 1102.1 We certiorari, 1099 (2004). II 6 Subsequent decision Congress enacted imposed See 2244(d)(1). may Calderon States Dist. Northern Cal. ex rel. Taylor, 134 981, 988 (1998). steps: third, hausted 986. 7 procedure: "it power [a prisoner's] [mixed] claims," 1092-1093, and, "that time-barred, `without prejudice' id., 1093. 8 Without addressing propriety warnings. 183-184 (1984), stated "[a] defendant does constitutional right receive personal instruction trial judge courtroom procedure" Constitution [does not] require take over chores attended matter course." Martinez Appeal Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist., 528 152, 162 (2000) ("[T]he duty perform legal `chores' carry out"). course. litigant And, extent concerned court's potential mislead petitioners, advocates misleading themselves. 9 Specifically, warning interest pursue This example, where particularly weak therefore better off proceeding certainly every seeks maximize judicial process. 10 advisement burdensome, time-consuming, fact-intensive investigation As dissent below recognized, often able based solely face 1108. Such petitioners 2254 Rules Governing Cases attach their file separately, state-court records.2 Hertz & J. Liebman, Habeas Corpus Practice Procedure 15.2c, 711 (4th ed. 2001) ("Most ability submit record rules relieve furnish answer"). judges, thus, might err 11 nevertheless argues necessary ensure decisions unknowingly forfeit rights. Brief 27-32. reads mandating "a `the court.'" 25-26, 27 (quoting 510) (emphasis brief). . `mixed petitions,' leaving choice" described above. words, outlined nothing much less suggests such, additional "simply implement what requires." original). 12 relies heavily 375 Castro, cannot recharacterize motion 2255 informs consequences recharacterization, withdraw motion. 377. its own volition, taking away desired route namely, Rule Criminal 33 transforming it, against will, into Cf. 386 (SCALIA, part judgment) ("Recharacterization deliberately override procedural vehicle claim"). recognized practice used help harm them. 381-382. competing considerations, reasoned "help understand ... [and] recharacterization." 384 then, reasoning sheds light confront. 13 Therefore, dismissing Rose. remand quite apart 14 For foregoing reasons, judgment vacated, consistent opinion. 15 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging affirmance Defenders Maria Stratton, Mark Drozdowski, Frederic Kay, Quin A. Denvir, Barry Portman, Peter Wolff, Anthony Gallagher, Roger Peven, W. Hillier II; National Association Defense Lawyers Walter Dellinger, Harris, David Porter. Finding impossible put position occupied prior "erroneous dismissal" Civil 15(c)'s procedures apply "ensure [respondent's] rights unduly prejudiced errors." 1102. Accordingly, "apro who improperly court, re-files unreasonable delay," explained above, ground correct. There circumstance nonindigent portions record. 2254(f) ("If applicant challenges sufficiency evidence support determination factual issue ..., applicant, able, shall produce pertinent evidence"; "[i]f indigency reason unable record," direct it) 16 concurring. 17 I join limited narrow notifications crafted given. 18 generally addressed. nor applied case. is, therefore, us pass avoids doing so. note, however, idiosyncratic one; BREYER describes, 239 (dissenting opinion), seven eight Circuits approved appropriate exercise powers. 19 reasons majority, ante, 232-233, incumbent establish explaining available Nevertheless, misled, either State, well appropriate. remand. 20 whom SOUTER joins, judgment. 21 While fully agree views expressed post page, 237 opinions), am persuaded entered remanding determine concur 22 dissenting. 23 respondent, 228, include three-step abeyance 230-231. retained but stayed postexhaustion amended reinstate now deemed filing.1 today "addres[s] procedure." Ante, 231. unaddressed seems me pivotal. If made, suggest clear statement augmented "advisements," 234, defer, does, core case.2 24 Furthermore, recognizes, "five [the termination AEDPA's] limitations." Thus, new even Given undisputed fact, characterization orders "without prejudice" highly 25 disposes confronting above-described ripe issues, dissent. my differ affirm Ford's 26 GINSBURG's write separately of" "stay-and-abeyance 231 (majority opinion). That permitted Richard Ford, ask (in abeyance) docket Thus bring again, expiration period. California's forcing relief. What unlawful about procedure? pointing considerations comity, crack deciding issue. 518-519. prohibited considering added (containing claims), 520. reassured prisoners (typically acting se), "unreasonably impair relief." reassurance made sense law limit refiling. remedies. Of course, prohibits "abusing writ," ordinarily presenting courts, constituted abuse. 29 Fourteen years (AEDPA). One thought blush difference exhaustion-based issue, tolls application post-conviction collateral review pending." 2244(d)(2). Duncan Walker, 533 167, 181-182 (2001), words "other review" cover proceeding. fact mistakenly find get year expires. Hence, Duncan, simply chance issues raises; permanent review. 230; 186, 191 (BREYER, dissenting) (citing statistics 93% se; 63% dismissed; 57% exhaust; took average nearly nine months grounds). Indeed, very atypical scenario expired 30 dissented arguing intended lose circumstances. 190. majority reached different conclusion, primarily basis statute's language. 172-178. 31 Accepting majority's view language, nonetheless believe raised lawfulness recognizes comity interests identified, reconciles longstanding prisoners. tension two. thus surprising circuit adopted similar Crews Horn, 360 146, 152 (CA3 2004) ("[V]irtually following usually within staying course action outright jeopardize timeliness attack" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Nowaczyk Warden, 299 69, 79 (CA1 2002); Palmer Carlton, 276 777, 781 (CA6 Zarvela Artuz, 254 374, 381 (CA2 2001); Freeman Page, 208 572, 577 (CA7 2000); Brewer Johnson, 139 491, 493 (CA5 1998); cf. Mackall Angelone, 131 442, 445 (CA4 1997); Akins Kenney, 341 681, 685-686 (CA8 2003) (refusing petitions). 182-183 (STEVENS, ("[T]here why retain jurisdiction meritorious claim complete remedies"); 192 (noting "JUSTICE STEVENS' sound suggestions abeyance"). 32 recognize noted importance respecting goals "comity, finality, federalism." 178 omitted). how significantly goals. unlikely mean increasingly believes wrongly incarcerated wrong (i. e., federal) prolong proceedings. Those sentence death welcome delays, cases deliberate misfiling filer abused writ consequent refusal abeyance. Moreover, fashion prevent abusive delays; providing Zarvela, 381. Nor seriously provision least claim. These requirements remain. 34 maintaining access comparatively minor interference creates concerns, legally permissible. important rights-preserving 236 (GINSBURG, dissenting). respectfully here allowed relation amendments remained Seeante, 230, n. 1. contrast, shorn remains albeit stayed. postponed solution inRose bears reexamination one-year (2001) ("[A]lthough pre-AEDPA Lundy prescribed our post-AEDPA world there remedies." (citation 154, (holding "should stayed," noting stay, "as dismissal, traditional way defer another until petition's claims" omitted)).

Category: 0