Haynie

MEMORANDUM **

We have a single issue before us, directed by the district court’s certificate of appealability, raising the following question: whether the district court may sua sponte dismiss a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d). The district court possessed jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 (d), 2254, and our authority to hear this timely filed appeal is 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Turk v. White, 116 F.3d 1264, 1265 (9th Cir.1997), and affirm.

Haynie filed his federal habeas corpus petition 21 months late. A district court order directed Haynie to “show that his claims are not barred by the one-year period of limitation set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1),” to “name the facility Superintendent as the proper party respondent,” and to “state how he exhausted each claim in state court.” Haynie’s subsequently filed amended petition did not, however, cure the deficiencies. The district court then sua sponte dismissed the petition before any response was filed by the State. Haynie argues on appeal that this was *529 error, reasoning that the statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) is…