holding that district courts are not required to warn pro se habeas petitioners that their federal claims could be time-barred absent equitable tolling if a petitioner opts to dismiss a mixed petition without prejudice and to return to state court to exhaust all claims
How later courts described this case
- holding that district courts are not required to warn pro se habeas petitioners that their federal claims could be time-barred absent equitable tolling if a petitioner opts to dismiss a mixed petition without prejudice and to return to state court to exhaust all claims
- explaining that although the Court did not directly address the propriety of the Ninth Circuit’s stay and abeyance procedure, the staying of a mixed petition is appropriate when an outright dismissal could jeopardize the timeliness of a collateral attack
- holding that the district court was not required to give specific advisements prior to dismissal of a mixed petition, but remanding case to address the concern that petitioner may have been “affirmatively misled” by the district court
- concluding that district judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants, noting that being too proactive on the pro se litigant’s behalf can undermine a judge’s role as an impartial decision maker
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice Souter joins, concurring in the judgment.
While I fully agree with the views expressed by Justice Ginsburg, post this page, and Justice Breyer, post, p. 237 (dissenting opinions), I am persuaded that the judgment entered by the Court — remanding to the Ninth Circuit to determine the propriety of equitable tolling — is both consistent with those views and correct. I therefore concur in that' judgment.