# Pliler v. Ford

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 21, 2004 · 542 U.S. 225

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434652

## Case

- **Full name:** Pliler, Warden v. Ford
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 21, 2004
- **Citations:** 542 U.S. 225; 124 S. Ct. 2441; 159 L. Ed. 2d 338; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4384
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stevens
- **Judges:** Thomas, O'Connor, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer
- **Cited by:** 1,078 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434652

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- stating that “to the extent that respondent is concerned with a district court’s potential to mislead pro se habeas petitioners, the warnings respondent advocates run the risk of being misleading themselves”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9434652. Public record. Not legal advice.