Skip to content
Name: Anthony v. Cambra
Case #: 99-15458
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 12/15/2000
Subsequent History: None

On April 21, 1997, Anthony delivered a pro per habeas petition to prison officials to be filed in the California Supreme Court. On April 23, 1997, Anthony filed a federal habeas petition containing one exhausted claim and five unexhausted claims. Although the district court dismissed the federal habeas petition without prejudice, it preserved that date as the original filing date for the habeas petition subsequently filed on June 13, 1997. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the district court was required to provide Anthony with the opportunity to strike the unexhausted claims and amend or resubmit his petition so that his amendment or resubmission could relate back to the date of the original filing, and would therefore not be time barred. By dismissing the petition without prejudice, the district court failed to comply with AEDPA. Nonetheless, in accepting the June 13, 1997 petition, the district court properly used its equitable powers. Moreover, applying the “mail box” rule, the district court also found that Anthony filed his petition with the California Supreme Court when he delivered it to prison authorities for mailing. Once so “filed,” the statute of limitations was tolled under AEDPA until June 13, 1997, when Anthony filed his new federal habeas petition containing the exhausted claims. Moreover, the district court erred in dismissing the subsequently exhausted claims, because the five previously unexhausted claims contained in his original timely petition related back to that petition. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the five previously unexhausted claims. The exhausted claim for breach of the immunity agreement was considered on the merits and habeas relief was denied.