Legal Opinion

Murphy v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided May 29, 2008No. 07-10786UnpublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. Pace v. DiGuglielmoSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  2. Carey v. SaffoldSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  3. Brown v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2002
  4. Pope v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1997
  5. Joseph v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Murphy v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2009
  2. Juarez v. InchDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API