Calderon v. United States District Court for the Central District of California

Status

240 citations to Calderon v. United States District Court for the Central District of California sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Treatments

Overruled

• The Supreme Court rejected Calderon's rule that a pre-petition request for counsel or stay begins a habeas case for AEDPA purposes, holding that the case becomes pending only when an actual application for habeas relief is filed.

  Woodford v. Garceau · Supreme Court of the United States · filed March 25, 2003

  Five Courts of Appeals have ruled that AEDPA applies ... while the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held it does not, Calderon, supra, at 539-540. For the reasons stated below, we agree with the majority of the Courts of Appeals. ... In sum, we hold that, for purposes of applying the rule announced in Lindh, a case does not become “pending” until an actual application for habeas corpus relief is filed in federal court.

  Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to Follow

• The Sixth Circuit declined to follow Calderon's conclusion that a pre-petition counsel motion initiates a habeas case for Lindh and AEDPA purposes, instead holding that the case begins only when the writ petition is filed.

  Williams v. Coyle · Sixth Circuit · filed February 12, 1999

  Recently, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled its earlier precedent and held that a petition for the appointment of counsel does initiate a habeas case for the purposes of Lindh. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 163 F.3d 530, 538—40 (9th Cir.1998). The Calderon court concluded that this determination was compelled by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236, 118 S.Ct. 1969, 141 L.Ed.2d 242 (1998). We disagree that Hohn requires this result. ... This does not imply, however, that the petitioner’s habeas corpus case has been initiated by the filing of such a preliminary motion. ... We agree, and we conclude that a federal habeas corpus case is filed or pending for the purposes of Lindh and the AEDPA only when the petition for the writ is filed.

  Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

• The Tenth Circuit rejected Calderon's rule and joined the majority of circuits in holding that only an actual habeas petition, not a request for counsel, makes a case pending under AEDPA.

  Moore v. Gibson · Tenth Circuit · filed September 28, 1999

  Unlike the other circuits, the Ninth Circuit defines a pending federal habeas petition more broadly. ... It has held that a habeas case begins with the appointment of counsel. See Calderon v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 163 F.3d 530, 539-40 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc) ... Hohn is distinguishable. ... Accordingly, this court joins the majority of circuits in holding that a case is pending under AEDPA only upon the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The filing of a request for counsel to prepare a habeas petition does not govern the applicability of AEDPA as it is not a petition seeking substantive relief.

  Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

• The district court adopted the majority actual-petition rule and treated Calderon's appointment-of-counsel rule as the contrary minority position.

  Lookingbill v. Johnson · S.D. Tex. · filed August 25, 2000

  The majority of federal circuits that have addressed the issue have followed the Fifth Circuit's reasoning. ... but see Calderon v. United States District Court, 163 F.3d 530, 539-40 (9th Cir.1998)(finding that a habeas case begins with the appointment of counsel) ...

  Read the full opinion on CourtListener →