UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely
filed. We previously granted a certificate of appealability on
the only issue raised on appeal: whether the one-year statute of
limitations applies to Meeks’ challenge of his disciplinary
conviction. After reviewing the parties’ additional briefing,
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
filed over one year after his administrative conviction became
final. On appeal, Meeks contends that (1) the statute of
limitations does not apply to disciplinary convictions and
(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
lawsuits tolled the statute of limitations in this case. The
one-year statute of limitations is tolled while a “properly
filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral
review” is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (2006). We find
that the filings Meeks relies upon were not “properly filed
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, we affirm the dismissal of Meeks’
petition as untimely. We grant Meeks’ motion to amend and deny
his motion to dismiss. 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