Document: 544 U.S. 408 PACEv.DiGUGLIELMO, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD, et al. No. 03-9627. Supreme Court of United States. Argued February 28, 2005. Decided April 27, After the Pennsylvania Superior found petitioner's state postconviction petition untimely under Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) and State denied review, petitioner sought federal habeas. The District refused to dismiss Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty 1996's (AEDPA) statute limitations, finding that was entitled both statutory equitable tolling while his PCRA pending even though law. Reversing, Third Circuit held, with regard tolling, an is not "a properly filed application for post-conviction or other collateral review" tolls AEDPA's limitations period 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), there were no extraordinary circumstances justifying tolling. Held: Because habeas beyond deadline any time period, barred by limitations. Pp. 413-419. (a) Petitioner When this held in Artuz v. Bennett, 531 4, 8, 11, limits on petitions are "condition[s] filing," such would be deemed "properly filed," it reserved question "whether existence certain exceptions a timely filing requirement can prevent late from being considered improperly id., at n. 2. There grounds treating two differently. Under common understanding filed" guided Court, after limit, which does fit within more than limit permitting exception. This commonsense reading confirmed purpose supported Carey Saffold, 536 214. Petitioner's counterarguments — filing" merely those conditions necessary get clerk accept petition, requiring judicial consideration; condition must applied claim-by-claim basis cannot "condition filing"; Court's interpretation unfair petitioners who try good faith exhaust their remedies rejected. require different result. obvious distinction between limits, go very initiation court's ability consider type rule-of-decision procedural bars issue Artuz, obtain relief. 413-417. (b) waited years claims became available file five months once proceedings final before seeking relief court, he has established pursued diligently. Thus, assuming applies here, See, e.g., Irwin Department Veterans Affairs, 498 89, 96. 418-419. 71 Fed. Appx. 127, affirmed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., dissenting opinion, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, joined, post, p. 419. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIRD CIRCUIT. David W. Wycoff argued cause petitioner. With him briefs Billy H. Nolas Maureen Kearney Rowley. Ronald Eisenberg respondents. brief Thomas Dolgenos, John Goldsborough, Arnold Gordon, Lynne Abraham.* CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST Court. 1 1996 establishes 1-year corpus petition. 2244(d)(1). That tolled, however, review respect pertinent judgment claim pending." 2244(d)(2). case requires us decide whether rejected court as nonetheless meaning We conclude not, hold Pace's barred. 2 In 1986, pleaded guilty second-degree murder possession instrument crime court. He sentenced life prison without possibility parole. did motion withdraw plea, direct appeal. August Hearing (PCHA), 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. 9541 seq. (1988) (amended renamed 1988-47, §§ 3, 6, 1988 Laws pp. 337-342). These concluded September 1992, when request discretionary review. 3 Over four later, November 1996, another (PCRA), (1998). had replaced PCHA amended 1995 include, first time, petitions, three exceptions.1 Although date upon new effective, said nothing about timeliness. 4 reviewing appointed counsel submitted "no-merit" letter. On July 23, 1997, Common Pleas dismissed calling response Commonwealth. noted previously been litigated meritless. appealed. May 1998, Commonwealth response, asserting PCRA's bar, 9545(b), citing support Alcorn, 703 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Super. 1997). responded arguing inapplicable him. December 1998. reasoned come note following see ibid., "neither alleged nor proven" fell exception, 9545(b)(1)(i)-(iii). App. 316-317. 29, 1999. Id., 372. 5 24, 1999, 2254 Eastern Pennsylvania. Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal 2244(d)(1), but recommendation, 447-466 (June 7, 2001, memorandum order), 503-533 (Mar. 2002, order). recognized that, barred.2 But during Beginning untimely, It because set up judicially reviewable obtaining relief" we described distinct concepts 11 (2000). alternatively 6 Appeals reversed. Pace Vaughn, 127 (2003) (not precedential). relied line cases constitutes deems filed." 128. remedy. 129. Circuits have divided over may granted certiorari.3 542 965 (2004). now affirm. 7 supra, ("[A]n `properly filed' its delivery acceptance compliance applicable laws rules governing filings" including "time delivery"). However, face here: Having question, 8 As "common usage" "commo[n] underst[anding]" phrase 9. understanding, permits confirms reading. theory, prisoner could toll will simply petitions. turn 2244(d)(2) into de facto extension mechanism, quite contrary AEDPA, open door abusive delay. 9 214 (2002), points same conclusion. required 4½ California appellate denial Saffold's further "on merits lack diligence," raised merit, untimeliness, both. 225 (internal quotation marks omitted). ultimately remanded, explained "[i]f clearly ruled 4½-month delay `unreasonable,'" i.e., "that end matter, regardless also addressed claim, timeliness ruling `entangled' merits." 226 (emphasis added); 236 (KENNEDY, dissenting) ("If all [Saffold's] overdue, then they all, period"). What intimated Saffold hold: law, [is] matter" purposes 10 makes principal arguments against First, asserts opposed some consideration. Respondent DiGuglielmo (hereinafter respondent) characterizes position, dissent appears embrace, 426, juridical game "hot potato," so long able hand tossing back. Brief 16. Be may, theory inconsistent where jurisdictional matters fee payments, often necessitate scrutiny, filing."4 See U.S., fail how less "filing" mechanical enforceable clerks, if exist.5 For example, Rule Criminal Procedure 901 (2005), "Initiation Post-Conviction Collateral Proceedings," lists mandatory conditions: (A) "shall" (B) "shall initiated verified "3 copies defendant convicted sentenced." natural every bit much (B). argues refers application," basis, Pennsylvania's filing." (Emphasis added.) Section 2244, refutes position. 2244(b)(3)(C), states appeals "may authorize second successive only determines prima facie showing satisfies requirements subsection." (Emphases Yet "requirements" subsection whole; instead, inquiry specific "claim[s]." 2244(b)(2)(A) ("claim" relies rule made retroactive); 2244(b)(2)(B) factual predicate).6 fact, argument itself, just . claim." 12 Finally, challenges fairness our interpretation. "petitioner trying litigate find out never filed,'" thus 30. A might avoid predicament, "protective" asking stay abey until exhausted. Rhines Weber, ante, 278. reasonable confusion ordinarily constitute "good cause" Ibid. ("[I]f failure exhaust, unexhausted potentially meritorious, indication engaged intentionally dilatory tactics," district likely "should stay, rather dismiss, mixed petition"). 13 suggests conclusion "prescrib[ing] decision court" confronted adjudicated presented conditions, here condition. Post, 425-426; 10-11 (discussing N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law 440.10(2)(a) (c) (McKinney 1994)). ignores fact itself distinguished bars. 8-10. determining what "rule decision" relief.7 Far "verbal gymnastics," due include 10. 14 these reasons, matter form, conditions. 15 courts.8 Generally, litigant bears burden establishing elements: (1) pursuing rights diligently, (2) circumstance stood way. 96 (1990). satisfied test. reasons law seek relief, unlikely reach claims, appear gain despite petition's untimeliness. "state exhaustion created trap" detrimentally slipped away. 34. Even requisite diligence. 16 forth claims: sentence "illegal"; plea invalid understand parole; received ineffective assistance "all levels representation." 202, 220. early 1986. Indeed, asserted version 21, 144. third related events occurring 1991. 191. 17 years, valid justification, assert petition.9 Had advanced availability, facing problem, federal.10 And sit sat them deciding 372, 373. long-established principles, diligence precludes equity's operation. 96; McQuiddy Ware, 20 Wall. 14, 19 (1874) ("Equity always refuses interfere gross laches prosecution rights"). 18 deadline, ordered. Notes: * Peter Goldberger, Richman, Joseph Farber, M. Porter National Association Defense Lawyers amici curiae urging reversal. ofamici affirmance Alabama Troy King, Attorney General Alabama, Stephanie N. Morman, Deputy Solicitor General, Suthers, Interim Colorado, Christopher L. Morano, Chief State's Connecticut, Attorneys respective States follows: Mike Beebe Arkansas, Jane Brady Delaware, Thurbert E. Baker Georgia, Mark J. Bennett Hawaii, Lawrence G. Wasden Idaho, Lisa Madigan Illinois, Steve Carter Indiana, Miller Iowa, Phill Kline Kansas, Steven Rowe Maine, Curran, Jr., Maryland, Michael A. Cox Michigan, Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon Missouri, McGrath Montana, Jim Petro Ohio, W.A. Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Myers Oregon, Corbett, Pennsylvania, Paul Summers Tennessee, Greg Abbott Texas, Jerry Kilgore Virginia, Rob McKenna Washington, Patrick Crank Wyoming. "[a]ny" "including subsequent shall one year" conviction becomes final. 9545(b)(1) provided: governmental interference prevented filing; constitutional retroactive; facts arise discovered through provides amendments apply [January 16, 1996]; whose become 1996] year 1996]." Statutory Note 9545(b) precedent, "petitioners convictions enactment petitions." 453, 503. Without therefore, well 1997 Compare,e.g., Dictado Ducharme, 244 F.3d 724, 726-728 (CA9 2001), Merritt Blaine, 326 157, 162-168 (CA3 2003). jurisdiction, see,e.g., Judge, 568 377, 387-389, 797 250, 257 (2002) (Pennsylvania jurisdiction custody). fees, see, 904(F) (2005) ("When judge unable pay costs proceedings, order permitted proceed forma pauperis"). Perhaps unintentionally, fails provide guidance exactly Rules subject clerk's striking noncompliance. doubt many rules, few truly exist role refusing most courts limited. See,e.g., Civ. 5(e) ("The refuse paper solely proper form local practices"); U.S.C.A. 3(b) (Supp. 2005) enter docket"); Advisory Committee Habeas Corpus 3(b), U.S.C.A., 316 ("Rule otherwise comply limited instances defective form; required, lacked pauperis form"). right theory. 5103(a) (2004) (instructing wrong stricken transferred court). empty set. Similarly, 2244(d)(1) "1-year limitation anapplication writ corpus." means calculating "application" whole, 2244(d)(1)(A) (date judgment), others consideration, 2244(d)(1)(B) (governmental interference); 2244(d)(1)(C) (new 2244(d)(1)(D) predicate). 901(A) (titled Proceedings" listing condition); "Jurisdiction proceedings" limit); Fahy, 558 313, 328, 737 214, 222 (1999) (describing "jurisdictional"); Ala. 32.2(c) (2004-2005) (stating entertain" time-barred petition), 9543(a) "Eligibility bars, like Artuz); 32.2(a) given present). squarely CfPliler Ford, respondent assumes standard, assume case. cite allegedly "new" evidence all: consisted affidavits parents brother regarding meeting attended 1985 195-199 previously, came effect January 1,supra, 2, supra. whom BREYER join, dissenting. 21 (AEDPA), prisoners custody window provides, pendency review." provision adopted today, review," accepted, filed, reviewed full chosen carefully justified particular contained compelled text assuredly frustrate purpose.1 22 words defined AEDPA. did, interpret (2000), considering ordinary context scheme appear. understood "paper official Lombardo, 241 73, 76 (1916). expanded explaining "application `filed,' term commonly understood, to, accepted by, appropriate officer placement record. filings." (citations applications distinct, legal procedurally 23 left allows categories comparable general precondition (such payment fee) instead akin bar prevents claims. 8-9, If former, make If, change Before answering useful explain why untimely. II 24 pro se (1998).2 round review: first, life-without-parole unconstitutional law; second, colloquy violated process. provided 191, 195-201, should "fully waived" justifications raising plain attempting then-applicable bars.3 25 At yet prior effective Act.4 Nor expired. 217 (1-year runs Act). exhausting remedies. 2254(b)(1)(A). far knew precluded AEDPA demonstrate Unless tolled 1997. 26 docketed counsel. trial merits. expired, agreed, none several untimeliness determination pleading generated protracted litigation place. III 27 state-law preclude applicant's 8. To construe "`properly application' mean `application mandatorily barred,' [would elide] difference `application' `claim.' Only individual containing defaulted ." Furthermore: "Ignoring judges engage verbal gymnastics contains not. Presumably say nonbarred rest. statute, contain peculiar suggestion single filed.' Ordinary English refer having raised, irrespective 29 reasoning equal force operates manner Artuz. PCRA, determine entire barred, various enumerated 9545(b). Imagine, violation process 373 83 (1963), demonstrates raise "the result government officials presentation claim" 9545(b)(1)(i) ineffective-assistance-of-counsel based application. announced forced purposes, filed. precisely incoherent avoid. 30 Incoherent results Many statutes applicants' Alaska 12.72.020 (Lexis 2004) (exempting inter alia, "based newly evidence"); Fla. 3.850 (2005 Supp. Pamphlet) (excepting evidence, rights, neglect counsel); Ill. Comp. Ann., ch. 725, 5/122-1(c) (West (allowing filings show negligence excepting entirely "claim actual innocence"); Iowa Code 822.3 (exception "ground period"); Okla. Tit. 22, 1089(D)(4)-(8) (requiring examine each included account unavailability). originating States, gymnastics" condemned. 31 conflicts gave takes generally declined adopt give meanings contexts, Clark Martinez, 543 371, 386 I decline do here. 32 wiser Artuz's operate bar. case, bar's exceptions, elucidated trigger applicability plainly function "delivered record" complied "applicable 33 Application consonant text.5 species larger category consideration questions equally difficult decide. Federal Civil contention affirmative defense waived. respecting identical justification giving special treatment IV 34 equivalently accomplish Congress vindicate fashioned strong "incentive individuals Duncan Walker, 533 167, 180 (2001). Duncan: 35 "The balances interests served period. promotes protecting prisoner's later pursued. harm interest finality according application[s]. .'" 179-180. 36 construing "potential adjudication claims," need overburdening encouraging piecemeal designed reduce." 180. "streamline simplify" system reduce "interminable delays" "shameful overloading" resulted "various aspects jurisprudence." Hohn 524 236, 264-265 (1998) (SCALIA, dissenting). unfaithful legislative goals. 37 fear allowing allow extend indefinitely repeatedly meritless 413 ("[A] petitions"). misguided reasons. basic "prisoner's interest, course, speedy claims." Rose Lundy, 455 509, 520 (1982) (plurality opinion). understatement vast majority "have incentive Duncan, 191 (BREYER, Most opposite delaying almost maximize periods incarceration. 38 Second, concern premised incorrect assumption meaningful content unless definition improper. reason depend my view, appropriate, consistent define excluding repetitious abusive. words, explicitly prolong improper appropriate. considerable experience identifying preventing kind pleadings today. McCleskey Zant, 499 467, 479-489 (1991). similar analyses prolonging limitations.6 39 Unfortunately, consequence increase, reduce, delays system. inevitable today's flood protective courts. history demonstrates, litigants, especially proceeding se, predict accurately predicted certainty, run risk expire choice premature accompanied Cf. admits holding. 416. merit knowingly unnecessarily "add[s] burdens way simple not." 192 40 Beyond increasing faced courts, tacit encouragement countless diminish "statutory incentives thereby "increase enacted 2254(d)(2), along 2254(b), "encourage litigants soon possible." 181. turns goal head essence, doubts simultaneously appropriately depart sound approach, respectfully dissent. answer erred reversing grant Legislature current original Act, 9541et 337-342), 1992. 1996. 1995-32, 9579, 1125-1126 (Spec. Sess. 1). instance, below excused 191-194, 220-226. "miscarriage justice,"id., 192, 217-219, challenged legality sentence, 189, 192. arguments, cited demonstrating default. "[a]ny subchapter, final, alleges proves that: (i) toraise .; (ii) predicated unknown ascertained exercise diligence; (iii) section retroactively." added). Seeante, favor interpretation, text, implicitly overrule compels singular contexts. interpretive unequivocally (2005). Such withArtuz, applications. An entirety. imagine motivated

Category: 8