Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): rule never presented for approval by this Court, he argues that filing a complaint should not toll the statute of limitations when a complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. ¶ 23. The plaintiffs cite Jackpot Mississippi Riverboat, Inc. v. Smith as an example of this Court applying tolling to a case previously dismissed for want of prosecution. Jackpot, 874 So.2d 959, 961 (Miss. 2004). In Jackpot, when examining the dates relevant to a determination of whether the statute of limitations had run on plaintiffs case, this Court stated: Smith and Richardson filed their “first” complaint for malicious prosecution on July 7, 1995, a little more than two months shy of the expiration of the statute of limitations. Norman v. Bucklew, 684 So.2d 1246, 1256 (Miss.1996) (<HOLDING>). On April 7, 2000, Smith and Richardson’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the same for malicious prosecution (B) holding that the statute of limitations is tolled during a malicious prosecution suit when a timely complaint is filed (C) holding that tolling of the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of a claim dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution (D) holding when a motion for postconviction relief is not properly filed  2244s statute of limitations is not statutorily tolled (E) holding that the plain meaning of  2244d2 is that the statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of any properly filed federal habeas corpus petition
Output (English): holding that the plain meaning of  2244d2 is that the statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of any properly filed federal habeas corpus petition