## Facts

- Patrick A. Day, a Florida prisoner, was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 55 years.
- His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal on December 21, 1999; his judgment became final for AEDPA purposes when the time to seek certiorari expired on March 20, 2000.
- Day filed a state postconviction motion 353 days after finality, which tolled AEDPA’s one-year limitations period while it was pending.
- State postconviction proceedings concluded when the Florida appellate court’s mandate issued on December 3, 2002.
- Day filed a federal habeas petition on January 8, 2003.
- The State answered and erroneously conceded that Day’s federal petition was timely based on a miscalculation of untolled time.
- The magistrate judge independently identified the computation error, ordered Day to show cause, and recommended dismissal as time-barred.
- The district court dismissed the petition as untimely, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court may dismiss a state prisoner’s AEDPA-governed habeas petition as time-barred on its own initiative when the State fails to raise the limitations defense and instead mistakenly concedes timeliness.
2. What limits, if any, apply to a court’s ability to raise AEDPA timeliness sua sponte in the face of the State’s litigation position.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a district court has discretion to consider AEDPA timeliness sua sponte despite the State’s inadvertent error.
- The Court reiterated that AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations is a nonjurisdictional affirmative defense, so courts are not required to raise it.
- A court may raise timeliness on its own initiative when it detects a clear computation error and the State has not intentionally relinquished the defense.
- Before dismissing as untimely, the court must give the petitioner fair notice and an opportunity to be heard, and must ensure the petitioner is not significantly prejudiced by the delayed focus on timeliness.
- On these facts, the State’s mistake was treated as forfeiture rather than deliberate waiver, and Day received notice and an opportunity to respond through the show-cause process.

## Legal Principles

- AEDPA’s limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) is an affirmative, nonjurisdictional defense.
- Failure to assert a limitations defense can constitute forfeiture, but a court should not override the State’s deliberate waiver of the defense.
- A district court may, in its discretion, raise AEDPA timeliness sua sponte when the State’s omission is inadvertent and the time bar is apparent from the record.
- Procedural safeguards are required before sua sponte dismissal for untimeliness: (1) fair notice to the petitioner, (2) an opportunity to present a position, and (3) no significant prejudice from the delayed assertion of the time bar.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, when the State’s timeliness concession results from an evident miscalculation rather than a deliberate waiver, a district court may dismiss an AEDPA habeas petition as untimely on its own initiative, provided the petitioner receives notice, a chance to respond, and is not significantly prejudiced.


Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006)