Duke Law School

Program in Public Law

Pliler v. Ford

Ford was convicted of several state crimes in California and incarcerated. He timely filed two petitions for habeas corpus in federal district court. However, both were "mixed" petitions that contained claims he had exhausted in state court, and unexhausted claims. The district court gave him the option with respect to both petitions of either dismissing the unexhausted claims and proceeding only with the exhausted claims, or dismissing the petitions without prejudice and re-filing them after exhaustion of the unexhausted claims. Although the district court's orders reiterated that the dismissals were without prejudice, the district court did not inform Ford that the one-year statute of limitations had expired during the pendency of his federal habeas petitions so that, if he chose to dismiss his federal petitions and returned to state court to exhaust all of his claims, he would be time-barred when he attempted to re-file his federal claims. Ford opted to have both petitions dismissed without prejudice and returned to state court to exhaust his remaining claims. When he re-filed his claims in federal court after exhausting all of them, however, the district court dismissed his petitions as time-barred. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. It held that that the district court's dismissal of Ford’s initial federal habeas petitions without prejudice was prejudicial error because Ford's decision to dismiss was an uninformed one. Further, it held that Ford’s second set of petitions relates back to and preserves the filing date of the initial petitions.

Questions Presented:
1. Is the dismissal of a "mixed" habeas petition improper unless the district court informs the petitioner about the possibility of a stay of proceeding pending exhaustion of state remedies and advises the petitioner with respect to a statute of limitations in event of any refiling?
2. Can a second, untimely habeas petition relate back to a first habeas petition, when the first petition was dismissed and the first proceeding is no longer pending?

Decision under Review

Supreme Court Opinion