In Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 225 (2002), this Court held that, where a California prisoner "unreasonably" delays in filing a state habeas corpus petition after denial in a lower court, that application is not "'pending' during this period' and therefore does not toll the one-year statute of limitations for filing federal habeas corpus petitions. The Court further held that the California Supreme Court's denial of a habeas petition on the merits does not itself "indicate that the petition was timely." Id. at 226.Question Presented:
The question presented is: 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"?Question:
When a state court denies a habeas petition summarily, without explanation, does the time that a defendant spent filing that petition count toward the one-year statute of limitations in federal habeas appeals under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act?