Day v. McDonough
2006 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Day v. McDonough?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
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.
Quick Facts Day v. McDonough, Argued February 27, 2006 Decided April 25, 2006 ...
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 |
Close