DANIEL SIEBERT, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD F. ALLEN, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
BARKETT, Circuit Judge: Daniel Siebert filed a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on September 14, 2001 challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence for the murder of Linda Jarman.
The district court dismissed it as being untimely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
This court reversed and remanded, finding that his state petition had been properly filed so that his one year federal statute of limitations was tolled, making his federal petition timely. We thus remanded for further proceedings. Siebert v. Campbell, 334 F. 3d 1018 (11th Cir.2003) (“Siebert I”).
However, instead of further proceedings, the district court revisited the timeliness issue and again dismissed the petition as untimely, finding that Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005), superseded our decision in Siebert I.
We find that the law of the case applies, noting that Pace did not address the question presented in Siebert I, to wit: a statute of limitations that operated as an affirmative defense.
However, rather than continuing piecemeal litigation and revisiting our opinion in Siebert I in light of Pace, we again reverse and remand for further proceedings, including questions of procedural bar and the resolution of claims which were exhausted on direct appeal. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr., Attorney Gen., State of Fla., 906 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2018)…Pace on the ground that " Rule 32.2(c), unlike the statute of limitations at issue in Pace [which was a jurisdictional time bar under Pennsylvania law], 'operate[s] as an affirmative defense.' " See id. at 5, 128 S.Ct. 2 (quoting Siebert v. Allen , 480 F. 3d 1089, 1090 (11th Cir. 2007) ). In reversing us, the Supreme Court said: The Court of Appeals' carveout of time limits that operate as affirmative defenses is inconsistent with our holding in Pace . Although the Pennsylvania statute of limitations at is…
-
Allen v. Siebert, 552 U.S. 3 (U.S. 2007)…at 417 (discussing “time limits, which go to the very initiation of a petition and a court’s ability to consider that petition”). The time limit at issue in this case is of the latter, distinguishable kind — as the Court of Appeals correctly stated. 480 F. 3d 1089, 1090 (CA11 2007) (holding that Pace did not address statutory tolling for “a statute of limitations that operated as an affirmative defense”). It is true that there is language in the majority opinion in Pace that is broad enough to cover both kin…1 / 2
-
Kuenzel v. Allen, 488 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2007)…Appealability (“COA”) specifying the only issue on appeal as whether Pace overruled Siebert I. After briefing and oral argument in this case were concluded, another panel of this Court answered this question in the negative. See Siebert v. Allen, 480 F. 3d 1089, 1090 (11th Cir.2007) (“Siebert III”). The district court therefore erred in dismissing Kuenzel’s petition as untimely under AED-PA. But the resolution of the question specified in the COA does not completely end our inquiry here. In July 2006, we…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pace v. Diguglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2005)
- Siebert v. Donal Campbell, 334 F.3d 1018 (11th Cir. 2003)