McMonagle v. Meyer, No. 12-15360 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, seeking relief from a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence, appealed the district court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The district court granted the Attorney General's office's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the petition had not been filed within the time limit provided in section 2244(d)(1)(A). The court concluded that, in the context of California misdemeanor habeas petitioners, finality for the purposes of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) occurs only once the California Supreme Court denies their state habeas petition and the U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari or the 90-day period for filing a petition for certiorari expires. Even though a misdemeanor judgment is "final immediately" under the California Rules of Court, the judgment is not final for purposes of AEDPA until a misdemeanant has exhausted his claim by filing a discretionary petition in the California State Supreme Court. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel reversed the district court’s order dismissing as untimely a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence, and remanded. The panel held that in the context of California misdemeanants who are required to file a state habeas petition in order to both reach the state court of last resort and fully exhaust their claim before seeking relief in federal court, finality for the purposes of AEDPA occurs once the California Supreme Court denies their state habeas petition and the United States Supreme Court denies certiorari or the 90-day period for filing a petition for certiorari expires. Dissenting, Judge Rawlinson wrote that the majority opinion erroneously conflates the concepts of finality and exhaustion and runs afoul of the time limits contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 3, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.