court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report in its entirety, which found that Starns had filed his habeas petition on April 1, 2005. This was error. Under the “prison mailbox rule,” a pro se prisoner’s federal habeas corpus petition is deemed filed when the prisoner delivers it to prison officials according to the proper prison procedures. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988); Coleman v. Johnson, 184 F.3d 398, 401 (5th Cir.1999). Here, the record reveals that Starns delivered his petition to the prison officials on March 24, 2005. April 1, 2005, is merely the date that the district court clerk filed Starns’s petition, which is not the "filing date” in the prisoner context. Therefore, on remand, the di 01332, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.25, 2003) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Practically speaking, if Starns or his
holding that the person who travels as an agent of person defrauded is a victim holding that where the limitations period had run for 364 days petitioner had one day remaining  in which to file the  habeas petition holding that where oral loan was silent as to the time of repayment the statute of limitations began to run at the time the contract was made holding that the limitations period under aedpa began to run after the petitioners investigator interviewed the person who found the victim and the petitioners trial attorneys informed the petitioner that they had never received the police report regarding this person holding that the statute of limitations began to run when the plaintiff first received notice of an alleged deficiency from the irs not when he received a final determination of tax liability