Anthony Thomas v. Charles Greiner, Superintendent

Second Circuit

Anthony Thomas v. Charles Greiner, Superintendent

174 F.3d 260, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 7505, 1999 WL 222350

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 1999

Docket98-2624

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 174 F.3d 260 (Anthony Thomas v. Charles Greiner, Superintendent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anthony Thomas v. Charles Greiner, Superintendent, 174 F.3d 260, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 7505, 1999 WL 222350 (2d Cir. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, an inmate in state custody, appeals from a judgment dismissing as time-barred his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (one-year period of limitation applies to application for writ of habeas corpus by state prisoner).

Appellant’s petition was filed on April 16, 1997. In Ross v. Artuz, 150 F.3d 97, 103 (2d Cir.1998) which was decided after Judge Preska dismissed appellant’s petition we held that first petitions' brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 will not be dismissed as time-barred if filed on or before April 24, 1997. In light of Ross, the judgment must be reversed.

Appellee argues that this appeal should be dismissed because Judge Preska erred in granting a certificate of appeala-bility on the statute of limitations issue. Appellee contends that the misapplication of the statute of limitations does not rise to the level of the “denial of a constitutional right” so as to permit an appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (“A certificate of ap-pealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”) However, appellee concedes that this specific issue has been raised before other panels of this Court, and that those other panels have rejected the argument sub silentio.

In accord with those prior rulings, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for consideration of the merits of the petition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, an inmate in state custody, appeals from a judgment dismissing as time-barred his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (one-year period of limitation applies to application for writ of habeas corpus by state prisoner).

Appellant’s petition was filed on April 16, 1997. In Ross v. Artuz, 150 F.3d 97, 103 (2d Cir.1998) which was decided after Judge Preska dismissed appellant’s petition we held that first petitions' brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 will not be dismissed as time-barred if filed on or before April 24, 1997. In light of Ross, the judgment must be reversed.

Appellee argues that this appeal should be dismissed because Judge Preska erred in granting a certificate of appeala-bility on the statute of limitations issue. Appellee contends that the misapplication of the statute of limitations does not rise to the level of the “denial of a constitutional right” so as to permit an appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (“A certificate of ap-pealability may issue ... only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”) However, appellee concedes that this specific issue has been raised before other panels of this Court, and that those other panels have rejected the argument sub silentio.

In accord with those prior rulings, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for consideration of the merits of the petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 F.3d 260, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 7505, 1999 WL 222350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-thomas-v-charles-greiner-superintendent-ca2-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack