Document: 533 U.S. 167121 S. Ct. 2120150 L. Ed. 2d 251 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.GEORGE DUNCAN, SUPERINTENDENT, GREAT MEADOW CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, PETITIONERv.SHERMAN WALKER No. 00-121. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued March 26, 2001Decided June 18, 2001 Syllabus The time during which an "application for State post-conviction collateral review" pending tolls limitation period filing federal habeas petitions. 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2). Before April 24, 1996, effective date Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA), respondent's state robbery conviction became final. He filed, inter alia, a petition under 2254. District dismissed without prejudice because it was not apparent respondent had exhausted available remedies. On May 20, 1997, having returned court, filed another petition. within reasonable from AEDPA's date. In reversing, Second Circuit found first application "other tolled 2244(d)(2) his current timely. Held: A meaning As result, did toll pendency begins with language statute. See, e.g., Williams v. Taylor, 529 420, 431. Petitioner's contention "State" applies entire phrase "post-conviction correct. To begin with, Congress placed specifically naming kind "Federal" review. fact AEDPA provisions denominate expressly both proceedings, see, 2254(i), supplies strong evidence would have mentioned review intended include See Bates 522 23, 29-30. Respondent's contrary construction render word insignificant, if wholly superfluous. Court's duty give effect, where possible, every statute, Menasche, 348 528, 538-539, makes reluctant treat statutory terms as surplusage. especially so when term occupies pivotal place scheme But rendition, has no operative effect on scope clause precisely same content were read review." Contrary Circuit's characterization, petitioner's interpretation does yield linguistic oddity "State review," but more naturally yields understanding Further, court's reasoning rendered meaningless refer petitions depends incorrect premise only "collateral" "post-conviction" "[O]ther could include, court civil commitment contempt order. also used collateral" recognition diverse terminology different employ represent forms after conviction. Examination provision establishing 2254 capital cases, 2263(b)(2), shows disjunctive relief" latter possibly anything its ambit. far consistent than purpose further principles comity, finality, federalism. Respondent contends creates potential unfairness litigants who file timely expired. sole task here one construction. And light facts never cured defects led dismissal remaining nine months period, 1997 contained claims, this occasion address alternative scenarios. Pp. 3-14. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR SECOND CIRCUIT 208 F.3d 357, reversed remanded. O'Connor, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, JJ., joined. Opinion Justice O'Connor Court. 1 Title (1994 ed., Supp. V) provides: "The properly respect pertinent judgment claim shall counted toward subsection." case presents question whether corpus provision. 2 * 1992, several judgments entered against Sherman Walker New York courts. last these convictions came pleaded guilty degree Queens County. sentenced 7 14 years prison 3 unsuccessfully pursued number remedies connection convictions. It unnecessary describe all proceedings herein. affirmed 12, 1995. later denied leave appeal Appeals. sought writ error coram nobis, Appellate Division 1996. final prior 110 Stat. 1214. 4 single document dated 10, complaint Rev. 1979, 42 1983 Eastern York. July 9, prejudice. With petition, citing 2254(b), concluded adequately set forth noted that, example, failed specify claims litigated appellate relating 5 year date, undisputed since filing. 6, 1998, barred "reasonable time" 6 Appeals judgment, reinstated remanded proceedings. Artuz, 357 (2000). at outset become he until observed exclusion instant held characterized "or" between creating "distinct break" two kinds Id., 359. stated create "linguistic oddity" form 360. reasoned therefore modified "post-conviction." 8 conflict statute AEDPA. instead promote goal encouraging petitioners their applications soon possible. 9 We granted certiorari, 531 991 (2000), resolve decision decisions three Courts Jiminez Rice, 222 1210 (CA9 2000); Grooms Johnson, 488 (CA5 1999) (per curiam); Jones Morton, 195 153 (CA3 1999). One adopted view. Petrick Martin, 236 624 (CA10 2001). now reverse. II 10 Our construe what enacted. begin, always, 431 (2000); Public Employees Retirement System Ohio Betts, 492 158, 175 (1989); Watt Energy Action Foundation, 454 151, 162 (1981). reads apply collateral." Under view, period. Petitioner 11 believe correct reasons. essence position incorporate into class comparison text 2244(d)(2), expressly. portions AEDPA, words denote For 2254(i) ineffectiveness incompetence counsel Federal ground relief proceeding arising section 2254." Likewise, sentence 2261(e) second states: "This preclude appointment counsel, own motion request prisoner, phase basis such proceedings." Finally, 2264(a)(3) excuses prisoner's failure raise "based factual predicate been discovered through exercise due diligence present 12 Section by contrast, employs "State," "Federal," modifier "review." well settled " '[w]here includes particular omits Act, generally presumed acts intentionally purposely disparate inclusion exclusion.' 29-30 (1997) (quoting Russello 464 16, 23 (1983)). find likely explanation Congress' omission intend anomalous, say least, usher generic rubric refers review, while denominating parts anomaly underscored small import drafts governs judgments. 13 we adopt "It our 'to statute.' 538-539 (1955) Montclair Ramsdell, 107 147, 152 (1883)); see 362, 404 (2000) (describing rule "cardinal principle construction"); Market Co. Hoffman, 101 112, 115 (1879) ("As early Bacon's Abridgment, sect. 2, said 'a ought, upon whole, construed can prevented, clause, sentence, superfluous, void, insignificant' "). thus "reluctan[t] surplusage" setting. Babbitt Sweet Home Chapter, Communities Great Ore., 515 687, 698 (1995); Ratzlaf 510 135, 140 (1994). unwilling do rendition If encompass then places constraint most singled out post-conviction" example universe approach, however, still nothing delimit modify relegates quite insignificant role "give each some effect" Walters Metropolitan Enterprises, Inc., 519 202, 209 (1997), requires context. 15 producing "an ungainly [the did] intended." F.3d, precludes regardless resulting posits. easily understood unit just Moreover, compel verbal formula hypothesized Indeed, ungainliness very good reason why might avoided precise formulation place. 16 reading fails claimed "the 'other review' petitions." Ibid. argument, there "other" contrary, possible criminal 17 2244(d)(1)'s 1-year person custody pursuant court." provides tolling "a claim." Nothing Nor ed. those 2254(a) ("a court"); 2254(b)(1) 2254(d) 2254(e)(1) court"). 18 Incarceration common familiar satisfaction "in custody" requirement cases. types challenge legality contempt. Francois Henderson, 850 F.2d 231 1988) (entertaining brought mental institution verdict insanity); Leonard Hammond, 804 838 (CA4 1986) (holding constitutional challenges orders pay child support cognizable action). These neither constitute nor require Any judgments, strictly speaking, Accordingly, even ' means provided state,' 360 Barrett Yearwood, 63 F. 1245, 1250 (ED Cal. 1999)), need independent meaning. 19 employed jurisdictions, procedure distinct conventionally considered postconviction Florida officially entitled "Motion Vacate, Set Aside, Correct Sentence." Fla. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.850 (2001). courts commonly referred "motion distinguished vehicles conviction, corpus. Bryant State, 780 So. 978, 979 (Fla. App. 2001) ("[A] cannot circumvent two-year motions relief"); Finley 394 215, 216 1981) ("[T]he remedy substitute 3.850"). refrained exclusive reliance doubt denominated parlance jurisdiction. 20 demonstrates 2263 establishes cases arise jurisdictions meeting "opt-in" requirements 2261. 2263(b)(2) "shall disposition petition." reference petition" clear phrases collateral," whatever content, illustration vitiates suggestion must significance apart 21 Consideration competing constructions purposes reinforces conclusion draw text. "AEDPA's federalism." Williams, U.S., 436. Specifically, construction, promotes exhaustion respecting interest finality interpretation, less encourage seeking hold greater hinder finality. 22 2254(b) ensures opportunity fully consider federal-law custodial lower entertain attack judgment. O'Sullivan Boerckel, 526 838, 845 (1999) doctrine designed full fair presented courts"); Rose Lundy, 455 509, 518-519 (1982) ("A rigorously enforced total will prisoners seek courts, giving error"). "is principally protect courts' enforcement law prevent disruption judicial 518. comity 'it unseemly dual system government district upset violation.' Darr Burford, 339 200, 204 (1950)); O'Sullivan, supra, 844 ("Comity dictates prisoner alleges continued confinement violates law, should provide necessary 2244(d)(1) plainly serves well-recognized Calderon Thompson, 523 538, 555-556 (1998). reduces delay road restricting prospective petitioner 24 balances interests served protecting ability being pursued. At time, limits harm according "properly application[s] 25 By pursuit powerful incentive exhaust furnish little individuals indifferent filings. While provisions, itself, course, exhaust, step design. undermine adjudication claims. 26 diminution incentives proceed increase risk piecemeal litigation reduce. Cf. Rose, 520. "strict dilute efficacy achieving objective. Tolling opportunities advancing goals federalism serves. manner. 27 "to spur defendants quickly." 361. view account sufficiently AEPDA's pursue 2254(e)(2), 2264(a). 2244(d)(2)'s provision, together 2254(b)'s requirement, examining convinced 29 note prejudice, cure dismissal. undisputed, nondefective elapsed. facts, scenarios describes. Stevens raises concerning availability equitable tolling. 30 reversed, opinion. ordered. 31 concurring 32 Stevens, part 33 Breyer, dissenting opinion, Ginsburg, 34 concurring. 35 Although I join full, joined Stevens's separate pointing bars retaining jurisdiction complete remedies, serious issue us. 36 whom Souter joins, 37 substantially reasons pages 4-10 agree better encompasses Thus, holds, 'application 2244(d)(2)." Ante, 13. write separately add observations regarding powers unaffected today's construing 38 First, although pre-AEDPA (1982), prescribed containing unexhausted post-AEDPA world retain over meritorious stay gives simply denying nonmeritorious 2254(b)(2) V), foreclose lapse limitations 39 Second, despite "purposes" ante, 10-14, narrow holding, legislative history deeming matter equity. Furthermore, conclude appropriate based belief bar invoke interval 40 After all, evolved product law. E. Chemerinsky, Jurisdiction (3d context runs final," 2244(d)(1)(A), uniformly created grace running enactment, whose AEDPA.1 Similarly, overlooked remain past belatedly realizes exhausted.2 post, (Breyer, dissenting) (district average take 268 days dismiss procedural grounds; 10% years). considerations make fill perceived Today's ruling possibility, given limited correspondingly holding.3 41 concur holding either above safeguards injustice literal otherwise produce. NOTES: Gaskins Duval, 183 8, (CA1 1999); Ross 150 97, 100-103 (CA2 1998); Burns 134 109, 111-112 Brown Angelone, 370, 374-376 Flores, 135 1000, 1002, n. 7, 1006 Austin Mitchell, 200 391, 393 (CA6 Lindh Murphy, 96 856, 866 (CA7 1996) (en banc), rev'd grounds, 521 320 (1997); Ford Bowersox, 178 522, (CA8 128 1283, 1286-1287 1997), overruled 163 530, 539-540 Hoggro Boone, 1223, 1225-1226 Wilcox Dept. Corrections, 158 1209, 1211 (CA11 1998). often difficult one, unschooled immense complexities dissenting), Morgan Bennett, 360, 369-371 2000) (disagreeing exhausted); Bear 173 782, 784-785 (same). Thus below, resolved reach "should exclude [time] [habeas] pending," 362 2000), free remand. Ginsburg dissenting. 43 year, ordinarily becomes 2244(d) V). . pending." us federal, state, Do proceedings? they do. 44 understand my conclusion, legal significant. Why ever want period? point adequate already tolling? 45 answer question-and problem rise us-is required merits, (requiring petition); cf. (holding, predecessor 2254, merits "mixed" claims). Such wishing return then, loses, again court. All takes time. proceeds unless defective find, seeks run 46 possibility purely theoretical. Department study indicates 63% dismissed, 57% Justice, Office Programs, Bureau Statistics, Habeas Corpus Review: Challenging Criminal Convictions (1995) (hereinafter Review). significant amount dispose addressed merits; average, took grounds. 23-24; id., (of petitions, nearly half six longer; large group petitioners, subsequent state-court rejection claim, barred. vary identically situated receive opposite results. Prisoner B mixed expires, A's seven B's able exhausting B-due fault own-may not. 47 hand, nonexhaustion previously spent Other things equal, pursuing available. similarly suffer outcomes 48 statute's language, tell Rather, unclear alone, (as majority believes). read, applications: (1) (2) broad category face, majority's unusual intonation-"State post-conviction-or-other-collateral review"-or slight rewrite inserting appear, "collateral." Regardless, words, themselves, singular "plain meaning." 49 Neither various interpretive canons appeals solve problem. Invoking 'Congress exclusion' (1983)), attempts ascertain Congress's intent looking provision's neighbors. points explicitly together, expressing cover 4-5 (citing V); 2261(e); 2264(a)(3)). displays intent. 50 neighbors show wished unambiguously limit "it knew how so." Custis 511 485, special governing certain "from petition," making count. (emphasis added). Does similar qualification 2244's fact, "argument neighbors" spoken clearly did. prove point. 51 believes statute-in "State." asks: meant appear statute? So, them, 6. 52 argument proves too much, ask equal force: thereby indicating 53 viewed realistically, gets nowhere. probably picked salient say. 54 recognizes sufficient concedes [State] coverage absence. (noting "by common" review). resolves difficulty noting name, "habeas" 8-9. 55 mind, 2244 indicate saw basic matter. instance, exceptions successive seem presume 2244(b)(2)(A) "new retroactive Court"); 2244(b)(2)(B) new "but error, factfinder applicant underlying offense"). expected applying challenging proceedings" fall description, labels choose attach. simpler, meaningful, logical assume cast wider net-a net wide enough precede nonexhaustion. 56 Faced ambiguity, look proper interpretation. And, 'further federalism,' 436 (2000)), "unexhausted described outset. no. enacted gave (plus duration proceedings) shorten dramatically, random, perhaps erase altogether, "den[ying] protections Writ entirely," Lonchar 517 314, 324 (1996), technical nature rules initially wrong 57 assumes congressional desire strengthen prisoners' first. result holding. virtually knows remedies; imagine them try so. arises vast representation. Review (finding 93% pro se). Prisoners acting se know change wording seen way stating old one; forward reflect one. Insofar so, approach lead fewer improper increased confusion, hesitate unfairness. undercut us-to grant bring 58 deliberately repeatedly suggests. 12. death (the petitioners) "[t]he principal ... obtaining speedy relief." chooses go deny permitted do, develop record Third, power vexatious repeated filings by, ordering contain Slack McDaniel, 473, 489 reducing "piecemeal litigation," significantly furthered 59 necessarily comity. mean loss tend ambiguous earlier petition's reasons, wherever sending back exhaustion. extent, lesser, greater, refers. addition, pressure expedite consideration arguably impose heavier burden (While Stevens' sound suggestions abeyance tolling, 1-3 (opinion judgment), ameliorate burdens simple not.) 60 recent assumed deprive interpreted ambiguities accordingly. Stewart Martinez-Villareal, 637 (1998), initial premature deemed "second successive" 2244, lest "dismissal 645. rule" 'trap' 'the unwary prisoner.' 487 520). Making assumption here, interpret permit 61 Martinez-Villareal Slack, discerned assuming (absent indication) mirror human beings knowledgeable about area question. kept firmly foremost mind 486-487; 644 (refusing "implications practice reaching seemingly perverse"). Today approach-an looks primarily, though exclusively, dispel uncertainties caused ambiguity. Where ambiguous, priorities misplaced. Language, dictionaries, canons, unilluminated purpose, blind alleys, rigid interpretations affects. generalized, bit bit, divorce needs, lives, values serve-a unfortunate people live lives law's light. right key intending same; reverse here. 62 respect, dissent.

Category: 0