Alfonzo Meeks v. Timothy McKoy

Filing 920100323

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6208

ALFONZO MEEKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. TIMOTHY MCKOY, Superintendent, Respondent ­ Appellee, and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:08-hc-02052-FL)

Submitted:

March 10, 2010

Decided:

March 23, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfonzo Meeks, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Alfonzo Meeks appeals from the district court's order dismissing filed. his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely

We previously granted a certificate of appealability on

the only issue raised on appeal: whether the one-year statute of limitations conviction. we affirm. A person in custody pursuant to a state-court judgment faces a one-year statute of limitations on any § 2254 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2006). Meeks' petition was indisputably applies to Meeks' challenge of his disciplinary

After reviewing the parties' additional briefing,

filed over one year after his administrative conviction became final. On appeal, does not Meeks apply contends to that (1) the statute of and

limitations

disciplinary

convictions

(2) even if it did, his grievances and other filings should have tolled the statute. We hold that the statute of limitations applied to Meeks' challenge of his disciplinary conviction. See White v.

Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1005-10 (9th Cir. 2004) (challenging transfer to private, for-profit institution); Medberry v.

Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1062 (11th Cir. 2003) (challenging prison disciplinary proceedings); see also Wade v. Robinson, 327 F.3d 328, 330-31 (4th Cir. 2003) (holding, in a § 2254 action, that statute of limitations "applies to claims challenging any aspect 2

of custody, so long as the petitioner is in custody pursuant to a state court judgment"). Meeks next argues that his grievances and prior The

lawsuits tolled the statute of limitations in this case. one-year statute of limitations is tolled while a

"properly

filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" is pending. that the filings 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (2006). upon were not We find filed

Meeks relies

"properly

application[s]" sufficient to toll the statute.

See Pace v.

DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 413 (2005) (noting that analysis of the phrase "properly filed" should be guided by common usage and understanding). Accordingly, petition as untimely. his motion to dismiss. we affirm the dismissal of Meeks'

We grant Meeks' motion to amend and deny We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. AFFIRMED

3