Opinion ID: 76689
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Properly Filed Habeas Petitions

Text: 7 In Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000), the Supreme Court clarified the circumstances under which a motion is properly filed for purposes of § 2244(d)(2). Artuz held that a motion to vacate a sentence was properly filed even though both claims in the motion were procedurally barred by state law. Id. 4 The Court reasoned that a motion is properly filed merely when its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings—rules such as the form of the document, the time limits upon its delivery, the court and office in which it must be lodged, and the requisite filing fee. Id. at 8, 121 S.Ct. at 364 (footnote omitted). The Court further explained that in common usage, the question whether an application has been `properly filed' is quite separate from the question whether the claims contained in the application are meritorious and free of procedural bar. Id. at 9, 121 S.Ct. at 364. Thus, proper filing is usually a matter of meeting basic, formal filing requirements. 8 However, the Court specifically noted one potentially relevant instance in which a motion is not properly filed: when a motion is filed in a court that lacks jurisdiction to hear it. Id. (If, for example, an application is erroneously accepted by the clerk of a court lacking jurisdiction ... it will be pending, but not properly filed.). Here, Estes and the State argue over whether the trial court had jurisdiction over Estes' motion to vacate.