Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Pliler v. Ford

Docket No.: 03-221
Certiorari Granted: Jan 9 2004
Argued: April 26, 2004
Decided: June 21, 2004

Topics:

28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus), Criminal Procedure, Habeas Corpus, ADA, Civil Procedure, Death Penalty, Sherman Act, antitrust, habeas, habeas corpus, murder, rule of reason

PartyNames: Cheryl K. Pliler, Warden v. Richard Herman Ford
Petitioner: Cheryl K. Pliler, Warden
Respondent: Richard Herman Ford

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: CA 9, 305 F.3d 875, amended 330 F.3d 1086 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. This Court held over twenty years ago that "a district court must dismisshabeas petitions containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims." Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1981). The question presented is: Whether the dismissal of such a "mixed" habeas petition is improper unless the district court informs the petitioner about the possibility of a stay of the proceeding pending exhaustion of state remedies and advises the petitionerwith respect to the statute of limitations in the event of any refiling.
Supreme Court Docket

Cheryl K. Pliler, Warden
v.
Richard Herman Ford
542 U.S. 225 (2004)
Background:

1. This Court held over twenty years ago that "a district court must dismisshabeas petitions containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims." Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1981).

Question Presented:

Whether a second, untimely habeas petition may relate back to a first habeaspetition, where the first habeas pet ition was dismissed and the first proceeding is no longer pending. CERT. GRANTED: 1/9/04

Question:

Is a judge required to warn a habeas corpus petitioner who is representing himself that his claims may be barred by a statute of limitations if he chooses to drop the claims and re-file them at a later date?

Note:

. CA 9, 305 F.3d 875, amended 330 F.3d 1086

Pliler v. Ford
ORAL ARGUMENT

April 26, 2004

Holding: vacated and remanded
Decision: Decision: 7 votes for Pliler, 2 vote(s) against
Vote: 7-2
Opinion By: Justice Clarence Thomas
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)