Cheryl K. Pliler, Warden v. Richard Herman Ford (542 U.S. 225)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 21, 2004 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 542 U.S. 225 · 124 S. Ct. 2441
- Decided
- June 21, 2004
- Term
- October Term 2003
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. Under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509 (1982), federal district courts must dismiss “mixed” habeas corpus petitions — those containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims. In this case, we decide whether the District Court erred by dismissing, pursuant to Rose, a pro se habeas petitioner’s two habeas petitions without giving him two particular advisements. Because we hold that the District Court’s failure to provide these warnings did not make the dismissals improper, we need not address the second question presented, whether respondent’s subsequent untimely petitions relate back to his “improperly dismissed” initial petitions. I On April 19, 1997, five days before his 1-year statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, would have run, respondent signed and delivered to prison authorities two pro se federal habeas corpus petitions. The first petition related to respondent’s conviction for, among other things, conspiring to murder John Loguercio and attempting to murder Loguercio’s wife; the second related to his conviction for the first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit the murder of Thomas Weed. Because the petitions contained unexhausted claims, respondent also filed motions to stay the petitions so that he could return to state court to exhaust the…
Excerpt of a 14,638-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.