Lamarque v. Chavis
Chavis, imprisoned for a murder conviction, filed a federal habeas petition against his prison warden. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) places a one-year deadline on the filing of all federal habeas petitions, which is "tolled" while state habeas petitions are pending. When AEDPA was passed, Chavis had a habeas petition pending review in the California courts. After the California Court of Appeal denied the petition, Chavis waited three years before appealing to the California Supreme Court, which dismissed the petition on the merits. Chavis then filed a federal habeas petition, which the district court dismissed as not filed within AEDPA’s deadline. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Chavis's state petition was pending – and therefore the AEDPA deadline was extended – because Chavis did not "unreasonably delay" the filing of his petition to the California Supreme Court.
Question Presented:
Did the Ninth Circuit contravene this Court's decision in Carey v. Saffold when it held that a prisoner who delayed more than three years before
filing a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court did not "unreasonably" delay in filing the petition – and therefore was entitled to tolling during that entire period –
because the California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition without comment or citation, which the Ninth Circuit construes as a denial "on the merits"?
