Legal Document

547 U.S. 198 (2006) DAY v. McDONOUGH, INTERIM SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS No. 04-1324. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 27, 2006. Decided April 25, *200 J. Brett Busby argued the cause for petitioner. With him on briefs were Jeremy Gaston and Andrew H. Schapiro. Christopher M. Kise, Solicitor General Florida, respondent. brief Charles Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Erik Figlio Lynn C. Hearn, Deputy Solicitors Cassandra K. Dolgin, Assistant General. Douglas Hallward-Driemeier States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. Clement, Fisher, Dreeben, Kathleen A. Felton.[*] *201 JUSTICE GINSBURG delivered opinion Court. This case concerns authority a U. S. District Court, its own initiative, to dismiss untimely state prisoner's petition writ habeas corpus. The Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, sets one-year limitation period filing such petitions, running from "the date which judgment became final by conclusion direct review or expiration time seeking review." 28 § 2244(d)(1)(A). clock is stopped, however, during petitioner's "properly filed" application postconviction relief "is pending." 2244(d)(2). Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, that tolling does not include 90 days in petitioner might have sought certiorari this challenging statecourt denial relief. Coates Byrd, 211 F.3d 1225, 1227 (2000). In before us, State's answer federal "agree[d] [was] timely" because it was "filed after 352 untolled time." App. 24. Inspecting pleadings attachments, Federal Magistrate Judge determined State had miscalculated time. *202 388 days, rendering some three weeks. After affording an opportunity show why should be dismissed failure meet statutory deadline, finding responses inadequate, recommended dismissal petition. adopted Judge's recommendation, Appeals affirmed, concluding "[a] concession timeliness patently erroneous compromise district court sua sponte untimely, under AEDPA." Day Crosby, 391 1192, 1195 (CA11 2004) (per curiam). question presented whether lacks authority, once has answered without contesting timeliness. Ordinarily civil litigation, forfeited if raised defendant's amendment thereto. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 8(c), 12(b), 15(a). And we would count abuse discretion override deliberate waiver limitations defense. case, confronted no intelligent part, only evident miscalculation elapsed statute designed impose tight constraint petitioners.[1] circumstances here presented, hold, correct error and, accordingly, AEDPA's limitation. *203 I Petitioner Patrick convicted second-degree murder sentenced 55 years prison Florida trial court. unsuccessfully appealed sentence, affirmed December 21, 1999. did seek Court's state-court decision; his do so expired March 20, 2000. Three hundred fifty-three (353) later, court's denying appeal, appellate issued mandate 3, 2002. See Nyland Moore, 216 1264, 1267 2000) (under law, order pending" until issues). Thirty-six (36) thereafter, January 8, 2003, petitioned asserting several claims ineffective assistance counsel. A Judge, "in proper form," ordered file answer, id., at 21-22. responsive pleading, failed raise supra, 201. Overlooking controlling see Coates, F. 3d, 1227, calculated been time," therefore "timely." revealed that, followed Circuit's instruction computation time, made: more than one year, specifically, passed between finality Day's conviction petition.[2] *204 newly assigned noticed untimely. Id., 26-30. Determining overcome bar, petition, Pet. Cert. 8a-15a, 7a. granted certificate appealability "[w]hether erred addressing [Day's] corpus . [State] conceded [the] timely." 37. decision rendered two earlier, Jackson Secretary Dept. Corrections, 292 1347 (2002), ruled "even though affirmative defense, may [a habeas] petition." 1349. Adhering Jackson, satisfied "was erroneous," F.3d, 1192-1195.[3] *205 We sub nom. 545 1164 (2005), view division among Circuits AEDPA, despite issue. Compare, e. g., Long Wilson, 393 390, 401-404 (CA3 2004), 1194-1195 (case below), with Scott Collins, 286 923, 930-931 (CA6 2002), Nardi Stewart, 354 1134, 1141-1142 (CA9 2004). II acknowledges, "jurisdictional," hence courts are obligation bar sponte. See, Acosta Artuz, 221 117, 122 (CA2 2000); Hill Braxton, 277 701, 705 (CA4 2002); Davis Johnson, 158 806, 810 (CA5 1998); cf. Kontrick Ryan, 540 443, 458 (2004) (defendant untimeliness argument "by failing issue complaint adjudicated merits"). respect, defense resembles other threshold barriersexhaustion remedies, procedural default, nonretroactivitycourts typed "nonjurisdictional," although recognizing those defenses "implicat[e] values beyond parties." Acosta, 123 ("The AEDPA promotes judicial efficiency conservation resources, safeguards accuracy judgments requiring resolution constitutional questions while *206 record fresh, lends within reasonable time."). On exhaustion remedies doctrine, prisoners, invoking jurisdiction, pursue available court, Granberry Greer, 481 129 (1987), pathmarking case. held consider interpose district-court level. 133.[4] Later, Caspari Bohlen, 510 383, 389 (1994), similarly "a may, but need not, decline apply [the nonretroactivity rule announced Teague Lane, 489 288, 310 (1989) (plurality opinion),] argue it." also Schiro Farley, 222, 229 (1994) (declining address merits brief, "[a]lthough undoubtedly reach" argument). While remains open Trest Cain, 522 87, (1997),[5] Courts unanimously appropriate circumstances, courts, their i. e., properly present alleged consequent adequacy independence state-law grounds judgment. Brewer Marshall, 119 993, 999 (CA1 1997); Rosario States, 164 729, 732 Sweger Chesney, 294 506, 520 *207 Yeatts Angelone, 166 255, 261 1999); Magouirk Phillips, 144 348, 358 Sowell Bradshaw, 372 821, 830 2004); Kurzawa Jordan, 146 435, 440 (CA7 King Kemna, 266 816, 822 (CA8 2001) (en banc); Vang Nevada, 329 1069, 1073 2003); Wiseman, 297 975, 979 (CA10 Moon Head, 285 1301, 1315, n. 17 2002). relies heavily Rule 4 Governing Section 2254 Cases (Habeas Rules), governing petitions preanswer, initial screening stage. Habeas provides "must promptly examine" prisoner must "[i]f plainly appears entitled relief." Once filed, maintains, loses sponte.[6] At point, according Day, Civil Procedure hold sway. 11 Procedure, extent they inconsistent any provisions these rules, applied proceeding rules.").[7] Rules, defendant forfeits *208 asserted thereto, State, hand, points out akin notably, nonretroactivity. Indeed, explicitly aligned current version 5(b), claim barred exhaust non-retroactivity, limitations." considerations comity, finality, expeditious handling proceedings motivated AEDPA,[8] counsel against excessively rigid formal approach now listed 5. Citing Granberry, S., 131-134, instructive urges express recognition "intermediate approach." Brief Respondent 14 (internal quotation marks omitted); 25. lieu inflexible whenever run, or, opposite extreme, treating initially plead absolute waiver, reads statutes, decisions point permit "exercise [of] each decide administration justice better served dismissing reaching 14. Employing approach" particular argues, deemed timely simply government attorney incorrectly. *209 agree, noting particularly instead acting sponte, informed obvious entertained answer. 15(a) (leave amend "shall freely given when requires"); 2243 (State's response amended leave court); Long, 402-404 (District agreed disposition, treated agreement constructive answer). Recognizing obviated controversy,[9] dispositive difference route, taken here. 24 ("Here, respond based calculation untimely."); Slack McDaniel, 529 473, 487 (2000) (admonishing interpretation prescriptions cases "trap unwary pro se prisoner" (quoting Rose Lundy, 455 509, (1982))). sum, permitted, obliged, consider, make scant sense distinguish regard constraints petitioners. 206-207; 5(b) (placing limitations" par "failure [and] nonretroactivity"); 404 ("AEDPA's advances same advanced doctrines same."). stress *210 required doublecheck math. If, held, "[d]istrict judges act paralegal litigants," Pliler Ford, 542 225, 231 (2004),[10] then, token, surely assist attorneys representing State. Nevertheless, judge detect clear error, Rule, statute, provision commands suppress knowledge. Cf. 60(a) (clerical errors "arising oversight omission corrected initiative motion party"). Of course, accord parties fair notice positions. 124-125; McMillan Jarvis, 332 244, 250 2003). Further, assure itself significantly prejudiced delayed focus issue, "determine interests served" barred. 136.[11] Here, gave due yield *211 nine months No action occurred interim, nothing suggests "strategically" withheld chose relinquish it. From all record, there merely inadvertent plain following lead Caspari, described 206-207. * For reasons stated, Affirmed. STEVENS, whom BREYER joins, dissenting Although disagree certiorariin my view, Justice Ginsburg's correctly decides question, Breyer joined Scalia's opinionwe agree disposition our announce now, postpone entry pending Lawrence 05-8820, cert. granted, post, p. 1039. As Ginsburg notes, concluded will Lawrence. ante, 203-204, 2. It seems improvident affirm possibly evaluation already erred. avoid miscarriage keeping docket Lawrence, practice *212 us ourselves. Accordingly, respectfully dissent SCALIA, THOMAS join, dissenting. today disregards (Civil Rules) cases, chiefly believes departure difference. 209. Even true, could join novel presumption applying Rules. "govern procedure suits nature." 1. includes "proceedings corpus," 81(a)(2), "to set forth statutes [or] Cases" 81(a)(2); 11. Thus, "[t]he context Corpus Rules," Woodford Garceau, 538 202, 208 (2003), contradict undermine Gonzalez 524, 529-530 (2005). adopt traditional forfeiture unpleaded defenses. 207-208 (citing 15(a)). identify "inconsisten[cy]" historical proceedingsbecause none. Forfeiture demonstrably practice, because, included 1996. Ante, 1; infra, 214-216. perfectly consistent "answer *213 (Emphasis added.) (and indeed, arguably suggested by) 4, prior pleading.[1] Most importantly, 2244(d) statute. Quite contrary, most natural reading, calls rule. expressly enacted, further qualification, 1-year limitation" applications persons custody pursuant courts. 2244(d)(1) (emphasis added). repeatedly stated enactment time-limitation periods 2244(d), elaboration, produces nonjurisdictional thus subject forfeiture. Zipes Trans World Airlines, Inc., 385, (1982); Eberhart 546 12, 15 (2005) curiam); 447 (2004). Absent incompatibility reason different. By imposing unqualified "period background understanding "limitations" implies usual applicable. *214 Instead identifying inconsistency rule, "it petitioners" sponteante, 209namely, nonretroactivity, (prior AEDPA) writ. 129, 133 (1987) (exhaustion); (nonretroactivity). But unlike limitations, created themselves, exercise equitable discretion, Withrow Williams, 507 680, 717-718 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring part part), seen necessary protect comity collateral criminal necessarily implicates. McCleskey Zant, 499 467, 489-491 (1991) (abuse writ); Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 80-81 (1977) (procedural default); 308 (nonretroactivity); 515 (1982) (exhaustion remedies). Unlike defenses, limitationnot even lacheswas imposed vindicate finality. entirely recent creature If compel all, follows fortiori making legislatively created, forfeitable nonforfeitable. fact, affirmatively rejected notion courts' traditionally broad discretionary powers support imposition bar. Historically, "there [wa]s habeas, laches recognized affects ability defend habeas"which *215 1977. Brecht Abrahamson, 619, 637 (1993); Smith, 331 469, 475 (1947); 17A Wright, Miller, & E. Cooper, Practice 4268.2, pp. 497-498 (2d ed. 1988) (hereinafter Wright Miller). passage alone extinguish rights person unconstitutional incarceration. Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman Claudy, 350 116, (1956); Chessman Teets, 156, 164-165 (1957). worse, doctrine well entrenched lower regularly filed extraordinary delays. Hawkins Bennett, 423 F.2d 948, 949 1970) (40 years); Hamilton Watkins, 436 1323, 1325 (at least 36 Hannon Maschner, 845 1553, 1553-1555 years). 1977, former 9(a) "introduce[d] first element into Miller 498by adopting "`prejudicial delay'" refers, 1even limited very pleading requirements rejects stricter 2244(d). Smith New Mexico 50 801, 821-822, 30 1995); McDonnell Estelle, 666 246, 249 1982). There is, therefore, governed permitted sole ground untimeliness. Whether have, Collins 1185, 1186-1187 dissenting), not. reliance pre-existing like default utterly misplaced. Nothing tradition refusing *216 justifies beef up presumptively "limitations period" dismissal. what chief decision, observes answer" "an controversy," concedes, "we here." Ibid. consideration cuts direction. truly "dispositive difference" disregarding rules Congress compelling disregard Rules.[2] Legislatively enacted respect apparent substantial hangs written. And, regime adopts today, apparently require development new scratch, exists well-developed body law govern *217 6 §§ 1484-1488 1990 Supp. 2005). Ockham offended today's else is. But, notable differences Caspariboth involve sufficiently significant departures ordinary authorization practice. First, allows either U.S., 130, 133; 228-229 (1994). Ordinary allow whose underlying facts developed below appeal. Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, 764 (1975); Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. Arlington Heights, 558 1283, 1287 1977). trials appeal narrowly circumscribed. Crim. 52(b); Olano, 725, (1993). Comity justified historically rooted exhaustion. 134. Also, possibility can over waive takes care 210-211, invites future. principal justification allowing "`implicat[e] parties,'" including "`judicial resources'" proceedings." 205, 2000)). *218 many wish simple belief unfair defendant. reasoning, overriding conscious "`values 205.[3] contrast, amending party's objection constitute discretion. creates unwarranted *219 expansion codified applies dissent. NOTES [*] Briefs amici reversal National Association Criminal Defense Lawyers Stephen B. Kinnaird Pamela Harris; Janet Cooper Alexander et al. Jeffrey Lamken; John Blume Elaine Metlin Ann-Marie Luciano. affirmance Texas Greg Abbott, Texas, Barry R. McBee, First Ted Cruz, Don Clemmer, Gena Bunn Ellen Stewart-Klein, Attorneys Dan Schweitzer, [1] Until took effect 1996, petitions. Mayle Felix, 644, 654 invoked "prejudicial delay" screen unreasonably late filings. generally 2 Hertz Liebman, (4th 2001). prescribed uniform rule: "A shall court." 2244(d)(1). [2] find timely. He asserts misinterpreted 2244(d)(2) holding tolled 90-day he 45-50. "set [for certiorari], fairly therein," 14.1(a). note, recently 1039 (cert. Mar. 2006), presents pendency instant opinion, emphasize, addresses correctness run. [3] mandatory limitation, respondent elects oppose solely merits. Tr. Oral Arg. 6-8. sentence per curiam stating: sits enforce 1194. read summary line description precedent: "We `even petition.'" (referring 1349; emphasis added); "patently erroneous" "does untimely" added)). [4] nearly decade provided waived requirement estopped upon unless through counsel, waives requirement." 2254(b)(3). [5] obliged declined so. 89. [6] Were accept position, never (or, least, hardly ever) positioned 232 (2004), information essential often absentas caseuntil along copies documents proceedings. [7] below. cite both amendments 11, effective 1, 2004, wrought relevant substantive change. [8] Rhines Weber, 544 269, 276 (AEDPA's "quite serves well-recognized interest judgments"; "reduces potential delay road finality." Duncan Walker, 533 167, 179 (2001))). [9] unanimous point. 216, (SCALIA, dissenting). [10] hindrance remedies. propriety stay-and-abeyance enable remain exhausting unexhausted 231. later Rhines, 278-279, stay mixed (i. exhausted claims) instance, then return perfected [11] confined limits. earlier noted, intelligently choose liberty choice. 202. 217-218 "[w]ere [Antiterrorism 1996] sponte," "information absent" prescreening stage, 207, 6. distressed phenomenon beg questionthat assume ought "be sponte." That precisely us. little impact outcome particular, "if [district] knowledge," 210. Rather, call attention invite 15(a), "leave requires." providing "justice requires," fully accommodate thinks 206, Requiring take step formalities adversary system, nontrivial value itself. Burke, 504 229, 246 (1992) judgment). seemingly unavoidable conclusion, asserts, citation "should choice." 210, assertion contrary statement 134 (1987)a which, makes "scant distinguish," 209that "cases fails, inadvertently otherwise, meritorious nonexhaustion defense." To assertion, cites statement: "Ordinarily shows, "ordinary" inability "intelligent" coupled automatic forfeit raised. say sense, 2244(d)(1)(A), reject (as does) (automatic forfeiture), embracing second (inability waiver). rejecting just second: 2244(d)(1)(A) supposedly "`implicate[s] efficiency,'" "`conservation resources,'" "expeditious 208.

Classification Label: 0