Opinion ID: 804463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: We reject Holmes's argument that the statute of limitations began to run in August of 2000, and affirm the district court's holding that the statute of limitations began to run on May 1, 1998. We hold that a properly filed motion under Mass. R. Crim. P. 29 is a motion seeking post-conviction or collateral review for AEDPA purposes. We further hold that the Rule 29 Motion Holmes filed in this case was not properly filed and thus does not toll the statute of limitations as a matter of law under AEDPA. We remand, however, with instructions for the District Court to consider whether there are grounds for equitable tolling, taking into account the reasons for Holmes's delay in requesting a hearing on his Rule 29 Motion as well as whatever information Holmes may have been given regarding the propriety of his Rule 29 Motion when he filed it in 1998. In so remanding, we emphasize that it is Holmes's burden to put forth evidence to show that equitable tolling is justified, but we leave it to the district court to determine what steps should be taken, if needed, to further develop the record. Cf. Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding to district court for appropriate development of the record on equitable tolling question, observing -36- that the district court is in a better position to develop the facts and assess their legal significance in the first instance). The parties did not address the question of whether the timeliness of a habeas petition should be addressed on a claim-byclaim basis. Thus, if it becomes necessary, the District Court should address this issue. AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings. Dissenting opinion follows -37-