Murphy v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
1Per curiam
In this appeal from the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition on statute of limitations grounds, the parties have addressed a number of issues involving application of § 2244(d). We need address only one of them: whether petitioner’s second Rule 3.850 motion was “properly filed” in the Florida state courts within the meaning of § 2244(d)(2).
A petition dismissed in whole or part because it was untimely is not properly filed for § 2244(d)(2) purposes. See Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 226, 122 S.Ct. 2134, 2141, 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002) (if a state court held that a petition was…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pace v. DiGuglielmoSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Carey v. SaffoldSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Brown v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002
- Pope v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1997
- Joseph v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Murphy v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2009
- Juarez v. InchDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2021