Opinion ID: 787651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Definition of Pending

Text: 11 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) allows tolling of the AEDPA statute of limitations while a federal habeas petitioner has properly filed state habeas petitions that are pending. 2 12 The state contends that under Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 219-21, 122 S.Ct. 2134, 153 L.Ed.2d 260 (2002), Chavis's second round petitions were never pending in the state courts, even while the courts had the petitions under submission, because the state courts eventually denied the second round petitions for procedural reasons. The state's argument misapprehends Supreme Court precedent and distorts the plain meaning of the word pending. The Saffold Court did rely on the state court's decision on whether a habeas petition was untimely to determine whether the state petition was pending, but in a different context: the Court was considering whether the word pending in the habeas statute applied to a time gap between the petitioner's habeas petitions in the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. Id. at 217-18, 122 S.Ct. 2134. This was an issue because in California, petitioners file separate writs at each court level instead of appeals, and California uses a reasonableness standard rather than a strict time limit to determine whether the next writ was timely filed after the first was denied. Id. at 221-22, 122 S.Ct. 2134. 13 While Saffold clearly applies to determine whether a second round habeas petition was pending between levels of review, it is not relevant to whether the second round habeas petitions were pending while the state courts were considering them. The dictionary defines `pending' ... as `in continuance' or `not yet decided.' Id. at 219, 122 S.Ct. 2134 (quoting WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1669 (1993)). A petition is clearly pending after it is filed with a state court, but before that court grants or denies the petition. 14 Under the state's strained definition of pending, a habeas petitioner would not know whether he was entitled to tolling for a petition filed in state court until the court granted or denied his petition. In the meantime, the AEDPA statute would be running and often would expire before the state court decided the case. So long as a state procedure for filing the habeas petition exists, the petition is pending while the state court considers it, whether the decision is ultimately on the merits or on procedural grounds. See Jenkins, 330 F.3d at 1153 (citing Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir.1999)). Chavis's second round habeas petitions were pending while they were properly before the California courts for decision. 3 15