Day v. Crosby
Day was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 55 years in prison. By the time he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the statue of limitations for filing the petition had expired. A federal magistrate ordered the state to submit an answer addressing all its affirmative defenses to the petition, including “procedural default.” The state's answer erroneously agreed that Day had submitted his petition in compliance with the statute of limitations and did not raise the statute of limitations as a defense. The district court then issued an order, sua sponte, dismissing Day’s petition as untimely. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Generally, when a defendant fails to plead the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, it waives that defense; however, habeas cases are not governed by this rule. Therefore, the state's failure to raise a statute of limitations defense is the same as an erroneous concession of timeliness, and a court may review both scenarios sua sponte.
Questions Presented:
1. Does the state waive a limitations defense to a habeas corpus petition when it fails to plead or otherwise raise that defense and expressly concedes
that the petition was timely?
2. Does habeas rule 4 permit a district court to dismiss a habeas petition on its own motion after the state has filed an answer based on a ground not raised in the answer?
