Opinion ID: 62326
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The running of the limitations period

Text: Once the expiration of the time for seeking review of a state conviction has occurred, Section 2244(d)(1)(A) starts the one-year period for filing for a federal writ of habeas corpus. Because Butler's conviction became final on July 24, 1998, as we just explained, the one-year period for petitioning for federal habeas relief began on that date. A tolling provision appears in Section 2244(d)(2), which excludes the time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review ... is pending. Under that provision it is only state post-conviction relief proceedings that cause tolling. The five-month period Butler asserts caused tolling was when his application was pending with the Louisiana Supreme Court on direct review. Therefore, Section 2244 tolling was not involved. The issue as to that period is whether his time for seeking review of his conviction expired at the beginning or at the end of those five months. We explained above why those five months were not part of his time for seeking direct review. When the Louisiana Supreme Court denied his late application on January 8, 1999, close to half of Butler's one-year period to bring a federal habeas petition by July 24, 1999, had passed. Butler did not file even his state habeas petition until October 29, 1999. It is true that Section 2244(d)(2) would cause tolling for the period during which the state habeas proceedings continued, but it was too late for a federal petition even before the state petition was filed. There was nothing to toll.