Daniel Siebert v. Richard F. Allen

Eleventh Circuit

Daniel Siebert v. Richard F. Allen

480 F.3d 1089, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 5270, 2007 WL 677212

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMarch 7, 2007

Docket06-11841

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 480 F.3d 1089 (Daniel Siebert v. Richard F. Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniel Siebert v. Richard F. Allen, 480 F.3d 1089, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 5270, 2007 WL 677212 (11th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

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the petition as untimely, finding that Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005), superseded our decision in Siebert I. We find that the law of the case applies, noting that Pace did not address the question presented in Siebert I, to wit: a statute of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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

480 F.3d 1089, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 5270, 2007 WL 677212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-siebert-v-richard-f-allen-ca11-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack