Miller v. New Jersey State Dept. of Corrections, No. 97-5611

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
Writing for the CourtBECKER
Citation145 F.3d 616
Decision Date08 January 1998
Docket NumberNo. 97-5611
PartiesFrank T. MILLER, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Donald E. Lewis, Warden/Administrator; Attorney General of the State of New Jersey. . Submitted by the Clerk for a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253

Page 616

145 F.3d 616
Frank T. MILLER, Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Donald E.
Lewis, Warden/Administrator; Attorney General of
the State of New Jersey.
No. 97-5611.
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Submitted by the Clerk for
a certificate of appealability
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253
Jan. 8, 1998.
Decided May 26, 1998.

Frank T. Miller, Camden, NJ, pro se.

Before: BECKER, * NYGAARD, and ROTH, Circuit Judges(Motions Panel A).

OPINION OF THE COURT

BECKER, Chief Circuit Judge.

This appeal of the district court's denial of Miller's motion for an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, submitted as an application for a certificate

Page 617

of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1), presents the question whether the period of limitation set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) is subject to equitable tolling. We conclude that it is, and thus we will grant the certificate of appealability, vacate the order of the district court dismissing Miller's motion, and remand for further consideration.

I.

In 1994, the New Jersey Department of Corrections found inmate Frank Miller guilty of conspiring to introduce narcotics into prison. Miller appealed the administrative decision through the state courts. The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the Department of Corrections, and the New Jersey Supreme Court denied Miller's petition for certification. Miller then moved in the district court for an extension of time to file a habeas petition. The district court denied the motion,finding that it was filed more than one year after the one year limitation period of § 2244(d)(1) became effective under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), and thus was untimely. Miller filed a timely appeal which we construe as a request for a certificate of appealability pursuant to § 2253(c)(1).

II.

Section 2244(d)(1) provides:

A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of--

(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;

(B) the date on which the impediment to filing a n application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;

(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

Miller's conviction became final in June, 1995, when the New Jersey Supreme Court denied his petition for certification. Because this was prior to April 24, 1996, the effective date of AEDPA, Miller had until April 23, 1997 to file his § 2254 petition. See Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 111 (3d Cir.1998). Accordingly, the district court properly found that Miller's motion for an extension of time to file a § 2254 petition, filed on June 4, 1997, was not filed within the requisite time period.

Miller argues, however, that this time period should be equitably tolled. He claims that he was delayed in filing his petition because he was in transit between various institutions and did not have access to his legal documents until April 2, 1997, and because he did not learn of the new limitation period until April 10, 1997. The Ninth Circuit, the only court of appeals to address the issue, held that § 2244(d)(1) is a statute of limitations subject to equitable tolling. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Court, 128 F.3d 1283, 1289 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, ---...

To continue reading

Request your trial
860 practice notes
  • Reynolds v. Cambra, No. CV977048CBMAJW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • March 9, 2001
    ...on time by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control. Beeler, 128 F.3d at 1288-1289; Miller v. New Jersey State Dept. of Corrections, 145 F.3d 616 (3rd Cir.1998); Henderson v. Johnson, 1 F.Supp.2d 650 (N.D.Tex.1998). "When external forces, rather than a petitioner's lack of diligence, ......
  • Sistrunk v. Rozum, No. 09–2495.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • March 20, 2012
    ...(holding that AEDPA's time limitations are “subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases”); Miller v. N.J. State Dep't of Corr., 145 F.3d 616, 617 (3d Cir.1998) (holding that equitable tolling may only occur when a petitioner has been extraordinarily prevented from asserting his rights......
  • Begnoche v. Thompson, 3:15-CV-2047
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • July 9, 2020
    ...petitioner has "in some extraordinary way... been prevented from asserting his or her rights." Miller v. New Jersey State Dep't of Corr., 145 F.3d 616, 618 (3d Cir. 1998). The petitioner must demonstrate that he exercised "reasonable diligence" when bringing the claim, "mere excusable negle......
  • Hedges v. U.S., No. 03-4395.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 15, 2005
    ...in the SAA is a jurisdictional mandate, equitable tolling would not be available. See Miller v. New Jersey State Dep't. of Corrections, 145 F.3d 616, 617-18 (3d Cir.1998) ("[W]hen a time limitation is considered jurisdictional, it cannot be modified and non-compliance is an absolute bar.");......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
860 cases
  • Reynolds v. Cambra, No. CV977048CBMAJW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • March 9, 2001
    ...on time by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control. Beeler, 128 F.3d at 1288-1289; Miller v. New Jersey State Dept. of Corrections, 145 F.3d 616 (3rd Cir.1998); Henderson v. Johnson, 1 F.Supp.2d 650 (N.D.Tex.1998). "When external forces, rather than a petitioner's lack of diligence, ......
  • Sistrunk v. Rozum, No. 09–2495.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • March 20, 2012
    ...(holding that AEDPA's time limitations are “subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases”); Miller v. N.J. State Dep't of Corr., 145 F.3d 616, 617 (3d Cir.1998) (holding that equitable tolling may only occur when a petitioner has been extraordinarily prevented from asserting his rights......
  • Begnoche v. Thompson, 3:15-CV-2047
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • July 9, 2020
    ...petitioner has "in some extraordinary way... been prevented from asserting his or her rights." Miller v. New Jersey State Dep't of Corr., 145 F.3d 616, 618 (3d Cir. 1998). The petitioner must demonstrate that he exercised "reasonable diligence" when bringing the claim, "mere excusable negle......
  • Hedges v. U.S., No. 03-4395.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 15, 2005
    ...in the SAA is a jurisdictional mandate, equitable tolling would not be available. See Miller v. New Jersey State Dep't. of Corrections, 145 F.3d 616, 617-18 (3d Cir.1998) ("[W]hen a time limitation is considered jurisdictional, it cannot be modified and non-compliance is an absolute bar.");......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT