The H onorab le W il li am T. Law rence ofthe Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t Court for the Southern * Dis t ri c tofI ndi ana, s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on . 

# United States Court of App eals

F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 A rgued M ay 5, 20 09 Deci ded A ugust 3 , 20 09 B efo re K E N N E T H F. R IP P L E , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e W IL L IA M T . L A W R E N C E , D i s t r i ctJudg e * N o. 08
- 1183 M ELKY L. TERRY, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant,
v. DON AL D GAE TZ, Act i ngW ar den,

R espo nd ent-A pp ellee
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s, Eas te r n Di vi si o n. N o. 92 C 821 5 B lan c h e M . M an n in g, Judg e .
O R D E R M el ky Terr y i s s er vi ng a l i fe s entence i n I l l i noi s forfi rs t- degre e m urder. Afte r a s er i es ofappeal s a nd r equests f orpost convi cti on r el i ef, Ter ryfi l ed a federa lpeti ti on fora w ri t o f h ab ea s c or p u s in 20 06
. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd ism iss ed T er ry ’s h ab ea s p et itio n as u n tim ely
. W e co ncl ud e that the di str i ct c ourtused an i ncor re ct date i n cal cul ating wh etherthe oneyea r sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons und erthe A nti ter ro i sm and Effecti ve Death Penal ty A ct (“A E D PA ”) had run by the tim e Te rry fil ed his pet iti on. U sing th e correct d ate, Terry’s N ON P R E C E D E N T I A L D I S P OS I T I ON T o b e cite d o nly in ac c ord anc e w ithFed . R. App . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 1183 Page 2

As di s c us s e d i n

f ra , the d istrict cou rt inco rrectly b eliev ed tha t Te rry filed his secon d state 1 postconvict ion peti ti on on Septem ber 2, 1999. ha beas pet iti on w as tim ely. W e the refore r everse the d istri ct cou rt’s dism issal of Terry’s p et itio nan d rem an d for fu rt h er p ro c ee d in gs co n sis te n t w ith th is or d er .

I . B a c kg r o und I n 198 7 a n I l l i noi s j ury convi cted M el ky Terr y o ffi rs t- degre e m urder, and he was se nt en ce d t o l i fe i m pr i so nm en t. T he I l l i no i s Appel l at e Cou r t affi r m ed hi s co nv i ct i o n, a nd th e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtd en ied h is p et itio n for lea ve to ap p ea l (“P L A ”) in Fe b ru ar y 1 99 1. T erry’s direct ap p eal becam e fina l on M ay 7, 1991

— 90 d ays after the I ll inois Sup rem e C ou rt denie d his PLA ( the ti m e per i od duri ng wh i ch Terry c oul d have fi l ed a pet i ti on fora w ri t o f ce r ti o r ar it o the Uni te d S ta te s S upr eme Co ur t)
. T er r y s pen t th e ne xt1 5 y ea r s fi l i ng peti ti ons f orpost convi cti on r el i efi n both sta te and fe deralco urt. Beca use the dates o f Terr y’ s fi l i ngs a nd the cor re sponding cour t deci si ons ar e i m port ant t o thi s a pp eal, we set for th th e c om p lex p os tc on vic tio nh ist or y of T er ry ’s c as e in so m e d et ail. I n Decem ber19 92 Terr y fi l ed hi s fi rs t pet i ti on fora w ri t o fhabea s co rpus in the dist ri ct c ou rt . O n O c to b er 12 , 199 3, w h ile h is fe d er al h ab ea s p et itio n w as p en d in g, T er ry filed h is fi rst p etition forpos tcon viction reli ef in Il linois state cou rt. In Jun e 1995 th e d istri ct cou rt dism i sse d Terr y’ s federa lhabea s peti ti on without prej ud i ce forf ai l i ng to exhaust hi s s tat ecour t r em edi es. A m onth l ate r, the I l l i noi s t ri alco urt dism i sse d Terr y’ s s tat e pos tco nvi cti on peti ti on a s unti m el y. Ter ry ’ s a pp ealo fthi s o rderwas unsuccessful; the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Co ur tu ph e l d the di s mi s s a l, a nd the I l l i no i s S up r e me Co ur ta ffi r med o n J un e 1 8 , 1 9 9 8
. O n O c to b er 5, 19 98 , th e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtd en ied T er ry ’s re q u es t fo r a re h ea rin g. U nd aunted, Ter ryfi l ed a s eco nd peti ti on forpost convi cti on r el i efi n sta te cour t o n J uly11 , 19 99
. Th e t ria l j u d ge ev en tu ally d ism iss ed T er ry ’s s ec on d p et itio n . O n ap p ea l, th e Illino is

1 A pp el l ate Courtaffi rm ed the dism i ssa l, and the I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t a ffi rm ed aga i n on Decem ber1, 20 05. O nFe b ru ar y 2 3, 20 06 , Te rry filed a se c on d fed er al p et itio n for a w ritof h ab ea s c or p u s. A t thi s point the di str i ct c ourtr evi ew i ng hi s peti ti on f aced a probl em . I t had di sm i sse d Terr y’ s fi rs t habe as peti ti on without prej ud i ce in 199 5 be cause Terr y had f ai l ed to exhaust hi s s tat e- cour t r em edi es. At the ti m e there was no s tatute o fl i m i tat i ons f orhabea s cl ai m s, so the c ourtas sum ed that Terr y c oul d refi l e hi s habe as peti ti on a t a ny ti m e. In 199 6 Congre ss passed the A nti ter ro ri sm and Effecti ve Death Penal ty A ct ( “A ED PA ”) , wh i ch im p os ed a on e-y ea r st at u te of lim ita tio n s fo r all h ab ea s p et itio n s. 28 U .S.C . § 22 44 (d ).N o. 08
- 1183 Page 3

AE DPA al so g r an te d a o ne - y ea rg r ac e per i o d t o pe ti ti o ne r s, l i k e Te r r y, who se c o nv i ct i o ns b ec am e fin al b efo re A E D P A ’s e n ac tm en t; th os e p et itio n er s h ad u n til A p ril 23 , 199 7, to file th e i rh ab e a s p e t i t i o n s . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t, w o r r i e d ab o u ts t a tu t e - o f

- l i mi t a t i o n s p r o b l e ms d u e t o th e i n t e r v e n i n gp a s s a g e o fA E D P A, d e c i d e d t o c i r c u mv e n ta n y p o t e n t i a lp r o b l e ms w i th Ter ry ’ s s eco nd habea s peti ti on byco nver ti ng i ts 1995 di sm i ssa lo fTer ry ’ s fi rs t habe as peti ti on into a s tay . I t dre w support f orthi s co urse o fact i on fro m o ur inter veni ng deci si on i n Ne wel l v. Hanks , 28 3 F
. 3d 827 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) , i n w hi ch w e hel d that adi str i ct c ourtm ay sta y, r atherthan dism i ss, a federa lhabea s peti ti on wh i l e the peti ti onerexhausts hi s s tat e re m edi es. Id. at 834. The di str i ct c ourtthen const rued Ter ry ’ s s eco nd habea s peti ti on a s a n am en d ed pet iti on an d reope ne d his case u nd er the fir st d ocketnu m ber. T h re e m on th s la te r, on O c to b er 19 , 200 6, th e d ist ric t c ou rtch an ge d co u rs e. T h is t im e, it deter m i ned that i ts or i gi nal19 95 or der di sm i ssing Ter ry ’ s fi rs t habe as peti ti on r atherthan i ssui ng a sta y had be en co rr ect und erthen- contr ol l i ng pre cedent. Ter ry ’ s o ne- yea r lim ita tio n s p er iod th eo re tic ally be ga n to ru n on A p ril 24 , 199 6, w ith th e p as sa ge of A E D P A
. H owever, A ED PA to l l s the l i m i tat i ons peri od duri ng the ti m e that a ny pro perl y fi l ed pet i ti o n fo rpo st co nv i ct i o n r el i efi s pen di ngi n s ta te c o ur t. 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 24 4( d) ( 2)
. Not i ng that Terr y had a proper l y fi l ed peti ti on pending i n sta te cour t o n A pri l24, 19 96, the dist ri ct cour t hel d that Ter ry ’ s s tatute o fl i m i tat i ons actual l y b ega n to r un on Octobe r 5, 19 98, wh en th e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtd en ied h is p et itio n for re h ea rin g. H e h ad on e y ea r fro m th is dat e to fi l e hi s habe as pe ti ti o n, unl es s he t o l l ed th e st atut e o fl i m i ta ti o ns pe r i o d b y i ni ti at i ng an ot h er st at e p os tc on vic tio np ro c ee d in g. A t this p oint in the an alysis, the d istri ct cou rt m ad e its m istake abou t the da te T erry fi l ed hi s s eco nd peti ti on forpost convi cti on r el i ef; the dist ri ct c ourtsa i d i t was o n Se ptem ber2, 19 99, but the c or re ct date was J uly11 , 19 99. That seco nd peti ti on t ol l ed Terr y’ s AE DP A l i m i tat i ons peri od a seco nd ti m e. His A ED PA cl ockst ar ted ag ai n on D ec em b er 1, 20 05 , w h en th e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtd en ied h is p et itio n for lea ve to ap p ea l. Te r r y fi l ed hi s se co nd habe as pe ti ti o n thr ee months l at ero n F eb r ua r y 2 3, 2 00 6. Acc o r di ng to the di str i ct c ourt ’ s ca l cul ati ons, thatfi l i ng o ccurr ed approxi m ate l y o ne m onth a fter T erry’s A E D PA l im itations p eriod h ad exp ired. T he cou rt therefore d ism issed Terry’s h ab ea s p et itio nas u n tim ely
. On a ppea l, Te r r y a r g ue s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t m i sc al cul at ed th e r el ev an t l i m i ta ti o ns p er iod an d th ath e filed h is p et itio nw ith inA E D P A ’s o n e-y ea r st at u te of lim ita tio n s. A l ternati vel y, he a rgues that he i s e nti tl ed to r el i efunder Rul e 6 0(b) o fthe Fe de ral Rul e s of C ivi l P roc edu re .N o. 08
- 1183 Page 4

The I l l i noi s Appel l at e Cour tr ec i t ed the i nc or re c tSe pt em ber2 dat e i n the bac kgr ound 2 section of a sum m ary ord er in w hich the filing d ate h ad no relev an ce to th e d ispo sition, an d it did so without any ci tat ion t o shed l ight on the s ource ofthe Septem ber 2 date. I I . D i scussi on AE DPA’s o ne - y ea rs ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns o n fede r alhabe as pe ti ti o ns c o m m en ce s when the pet i ti oner ’ s co nvi cti on be com es fi nal
. 2 8 U.S
. C. § 2 244( d)( 1)
. F orpeti ti oner s whose convi cti ons becam e fi nalbefor e AE DP A ’ s e nactm ent, however, A ED PA al so gr ants a o neye ar gra c e p er iod
. T h es e p et itio n er s h av e u n til A p ril 23 , 199 7, to file th eir h ab ea s p et itio n s. Because Ter ry ’ s convi cti on be cam e fi nali n 199 1, Ter rywas enti tl ed to ta ke advantage o f AE DPA’s o ne - y ea rg r ac e per i o d. In a ddi ti o n, AEDPA t o l l s th e l i m i ta ti o ns pe r i o d dur i ng th e p en d en c y of a p ro p er ly filed p et itio n for s ta te p os tc on vic tio n relie f. 28 U .S.C . § 22 44 (d )(2)
. The ti m el i ness ofTer ry ’ s habe as peti ti on depends on wh en he fi l ed hi s s eco nd st ate cour t pr oce edi ng. The di str i ct c ourttho ught that Ter ryfi l ed hi s s eco nd peti ti on for p os tc on vic tio nrelie f on Sep te m b er 2, 19 99
. T h is w as a m ist ak e, as w e h av e n ot ed ; th er e is no e vi den ce i n the r ec o r d t o s uppo r t th e S ept embe r2 da te , a nd i t i s unc l ea rwher e th e c ou rt ’s m isin for m at ion orig in at ed
. In st ea d , th e re c or d sh ow s t h atT er ry ac tu ally filed h is 2 pet i ti o n o n J ul y 1 1, 1 99 9. T er r y s ubmi tt ed two do cument s es tabl i sh i ngthe a cc ur ac y o fthe J uly11 date: a re cei pt fro m the pri son m ai lsy ste m sho w i ng tha t he m ai l ed the peti ti on o n J uly11 and a c opy o fthe I l l i noi s s tat e- cour t dock et showing that the pet i ti on was docke ted on J uly15
. I l l i noi s use s the “pr i son m ai lr ule , ” which s tat es that ple ading s a re fi l ed the day th ey are p ro vid ed to p ris on offic ials for m ailin g. Jones v. Be r t rand, 171 F.3d 499 , 502 (7th C ir. 1999 ). There f or e, the re cor d refl ects thatTer ry ’ s AE DP A l i m i tat i ons peri od shoul d have been tol l ed fro m J uly11 , the date he fi l ed hi s s eco nd st ate post convi cti on pro ceedi ng— not S e pt e mbe r2 , the da t e the di s t r i c tc o ur tu s e d. There i s a furtherco m pli cati on, however
. F our days be f or e o ra lar gum ent in thi s ca se, the I l l i noi s a ssi sta nt at torney g ener alsubm i tte d a l ett erunder Ci rcui t Rul e 2 8(j ) m aking a differ ent a rgum ent o n behal fo fthe re spondent w ar den. He ar gued that Terr y’ s fi rs t p ostcon viction p roceed ing end ed on Jun e 18, 1998 , w he n th e I ll inois A p p ell ate C ou rt affir m ed th e d ism iss al of t h e p et itio n, rat h er th an O c to b er 5, 19 98 , w h en th e Illino is S u p r e me C o u r td e n i e d th e p e t i t i o nf o rr e h e a r i n g . I fc o r r e c t, th i s w o u l d r e d u c e th e t i me that Terr y’ s AE DP A l i m i tat i ons peri od w as tol l ed by al m ostf our m onths and render T er ry ’s p et itio nu n tim ely
. The i ssue ofwh ethera peti ti on forpost convi cti on r el i efi s “ pend i ng” forpurposes o f A E D P A is a q u es tio nof st at e la w . Wilso n v . B a ttles , 302 F.3d 745 , 747 (7th C ir. 2002). TheN o. 08
- 1183 Page 5

The ass is tantatt orney general argues on app eal thatAE D PA ’ s st atute ofl im it ati ons was 3 no t tolled d u ring the p en d en cy of Te rry ’ s first po stcon v iction p etition b eca u se the state cou rts d en ied it as un tim ely
. B eca u se this arg u m en t w as no t raised in the d istrict cou rt, ho w ev er, it is wai ve d. ass i sta nt at torney g ener alci tes Jones v. H ulick, 449 F.3d 784 , 789 (7th C ir. 2006), as su p p ort f o rthe pr o po si ti o n tha t unde rI l l i no i s l aw a pe ti ti o n fo rr eh ea r i ngdo es no t al te rthe effecti ve date o fj ud gm ent unl ess the cour t g ra nts the peti ti on. W e no te i ni ti al l y that Jo nes expla i ns o nl y when a j ud gm ent a pp eal ed to the sta te’ s hi ghestco urt tak es effect; i t doe s no t n e c e s s a r i l y e x p l a i nw h e na s t a t e p e t i t i o n i s “ p e n d i n g ” u n d e rA E D P A. A s th e S u p r e me C ou rth as n ot ed , th e t w o m ay n otbe int er c h an ge ab le. Lawre nc ev. Fl or i da , 54 9 U.S
. 32 7, 33 3 ( 2007 ) ( noting the di ffer ences between A ED PA ’ s fi nal i ty provi si on a nd A ED PA ’ s pro vi si on d ealing w ith th e pe nd en cy of state p ostcon viction p roceed ings). W e a l so obs er ve that Illino is a p p ea rs to h av e c on flict in g d ec isio n s o n th e q u es tio n of w h et h er a c as e is st ill “p en d in g” w h en a p et itio nfor re h ea rin g is file d in t h e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rt . C o m pa re Pe op l ev . Brown , 79 2 N
. E.2 d 788, 78 9 ( I l l
. 20 02) ( sugge sting tha t a cas e doe s no t be com e fi nal u n til a p et itio nfor re h ea rin g is d en ied ), with PSL Real ty Co. v. Gr ani t eInv. Co. , 42 7 N
. E.2 d 56 3, 5 70 ( I l l
. 1 98 1) ( no tingtha t th e fi l i ngo fa pe ti ti o n fo rr eh ea r i ngdo es no t al te rthe effe c tiv e d at e o f j u d gm en t u n les s t h e p et itio n is gra n te d ). W e nee d not a dd re ss thi s a pp ar ent c onfl i ct in the I l l i noi s ca sel aw . The f ai l ure to ra i se th is iss u e u n til fou r d ay s b efo re ora l arg u m en t is a w aiv er . Se eGr igs b y v . Cot t on , 45 6 F
. 3d 727, 731 (7th C ir. 2006). The as si sta nt at torney g ener alnei therpre sente d thi s a rgum ent t o th e d istri ct cou rt nor includ ed i t in his bri ef on ap p eal. A ccord ingly, w e hold that Terry’s lim ita tio n s p er iod u n d er A E D P A d id n otst ar t u n til O c to b er 5, 19 98 , w h en th e Illino is Suprem e Cour t deni ed hi s peti ti on forr ehear ing. U si ng Octo ber5, 19 98, and J uly11 , 19 99, as the dates Terr y’ s l i m i tat i ons peri od st ar ted an d st op p ed ag ain , w e fu rt h er h old th atT er ry filed h is s ec on d h ab ea s p et itio n w ith in AE DPA’s l i m i ta ti o ns pe r i o d. OnApri l2 4, 1 99 6, the da te o fAEDPA ’ s en ac tmenta nd the date that Ter ry ’ s o ne- yea r sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons bega n to r un, Terr y had a proper l y fi l ed p etition forpos tcon viction reli ef pen d ing in state cou rt. Th is i m m ed iately toll ed Terry’s li m itations p eriod u nt ilOc tober 5, 1998, w he n th e I ll inois Sup rem e C ou rt de nied Terry’s peti ti on forr ehear i ng. Ter ry ’ s o ne- yea r cl ockst ar ted o n Octobe r 5, 19 98, and ra n f ora tot al 3 of27 8 days unti lJ uly11 , 19 99, wh en Ter ryfi l ed hi s s eco nd peti ti on forst ate post convi cti on re l i ef
. Thi s s eco nd fi l i ng to l l ed the l i m i tat i ons peri od ag ai n w hi l e I l l i noi s co nsi dered T erry’s secon d pos tcon viction p etition. W he n th e I ll inois Sup rem e C ou rt de nied Terry’s p etition forl eave to app eal on D ecem ber 1, 2005 , the clock sta rted run nin g again, and Terry had 87 days r em ai ni ng to fi l e hi s habe as peti ti on. Ter ryfi l ed hi s s eco nd habea s peti ti on o n F eb r ua r y 2 3, 2 00 6—83 day s l at era nd fo urda y s shy o fthe e nd o fhi s AE DPA l i m i ta ti o nsN o. 08
- 1183 Page 6

p er iod
. T h u s, T er ry ’s h ab ea s p et itio n w as tim ely filed
. T he assistan t attorn ey gen eral argues th at w e shou ld affi rm non eth eless beca us e Te rry f ai l ed to b r i efthe mer i ts o fhi s su bs ta nt i ve c o ns ti tu ti o na lhabe as c l ai m s. We de cl i ne t o fi nd wai ve ri n thi s si tu at i o n. Ou rc er ti fi ca te o fa ppea l ab i l i ty, whi l e no tingTe r r y ’ s m er i to r i o us const i tuti onalcl ai m s, o nl y s ought bri efi ng o n the proce du ra li ssues . W e wil lnotf aul t a pet i ti o ne rf o rf o l l o wi ngo uri ns truct i o ns . T hi s i s no t a ca se i n whi chwe r eque st ed br i efi ng on the m er i ts and peti ti onerf ai l ed to br i eftho se i ssues ; that woul d c on st itu te a w aiv er . See A nd erson v. Litsch er, 28 1 F
. 3d 672, 675 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. Here, Ter ry ’ s co unseldi d exactl y a s we a sk ed an d b r i efed o nl y the pr o ce dur ala spe ct s o fthe c as e. T er r y ha s no t wai ve d the m er i ts ofhi s co nsti tuti onalar gum ents, and the dist ri ct c ourtsho uld pro ceed t o add re ss the m o n r e man d. Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we R EV ERSE the j ud g men to fthe di s t r i c tc o ur ta nd R EMA ND for furth er proc eed ings con sisten t w ith th is or d er.