Cameron Holbrook v. Cindi Curtin, 833 F.3d 612

Holbrook was convicted of first-degree murder in Michigan and his conviction became final on August 23, 2010, starting AEDPA’s one-year limitations period.
He used 269 days of the limitations period before filing a state motion for relief from judgment on May 19, 2011; that motion was denied and he sought leave to appeal.
The Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave on November 8, 2012; Michigan rules gave Holbrook 56 days (until January 3, 2013) to seek leave from the Michigan Supreme Court.
Holbrook filed an untimely application to the Michigan Supreme Court on January 7, 2013; it was denied as untimely on January 11, 2013.
He filed a federal habeas petition in March 2013; the district court ruled the petition untimely because tolling ended on November 8, 2012, and dismissed. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether AEDPA tolling continues during the period in which a petitioner could timely seek review by the state’s highest court after a denial by an intermediate state court	Holbrook: a properly filed state post-conviction motion remains "pending" until the time to seek review to the state supreme court expires (here Jan 3, 2013), so AEDPA tolling continued	State: tolling ended when the Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave (Nov 8, 2012); the clock should resume then so the federal petition is untimely	Court held tolling continued through the period in which Holbrook could have sought higher-court review (until the deadline to file with the Michigan Supreme Court); reversed district court and remanded

Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) (tolling continues while a state collateral application is pending through state post-conviction procedures)
Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (2006) (unexplained, excessive delay in seeking state review may fall outside "pending")
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012) (a judgment becomes final for AEDPA when the time to seek review by the State's highest court expires)
Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (2009) (direct-review finality includes the period to seek certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court)
Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (2003) (limitations period runs from expiration of time to file certiorari in direct-review context)
Scarber v. Palmer, 808 F.3d 1093 (6th Cir. 2015) (limitations resumed after final disposition by the state's highest court; distinguished on procedural grounds)
Abela v. Martin, 348 F.3d 164 (6th Cir. 2003) (statute of limitations should be clear; limitations status should not depend on later events)
Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007) (AEDPA tolling references state post-conviction review; certiorari period does not always toll where not a state proceeding)