Day v. McDonough
| Day v. McDonough | |
|---|---|
| Argued February 27, 2006 Decided April 25, 2006 | |
| Full case name | Patrick A. Day v. James R. McDonough, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections |
| Docket no. | 04-1324 |
| Citations | 547 U.S. 198 (more) 126 S. Ct. 1675; 164 L. Ed. 2d 376; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3448 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Petition dismissed, sub nom., Day v. Crosby, N.D. Fla; affirmed, 391 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2004); cert. granted, 545 U.S. 1164 (2005). |
| Holding | |
| The State's unintentional failure to object to the filing of a habeas corpus petition after the statute of limitations expired does not prevent a district court from dismissing the petition on its own initiative. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Souter, Alito |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Breyer |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas, Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 81; Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 4, 5 | |
Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), is a US Supreme Court case involving the one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that if the government unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to dismiss sua sponte (on its own initiative) the petition on that basis.