Noble v. Adams, 676 F.3d 1180

Noble was convicted in California state court of aggravated sexual assault of a child, lewd acts, false imprisonment, and related offenses, with an aggregate sentence of 130 years to life.
His direct-review conviction became final for AEDPA purposes on July 20, 2004, at the end of the time to seek certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Noble timely filed multiple state petitions for post-conviction relief beginning in 2005, which were denied or summarily denied at various state levels.
Noble then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on October 26, 2006, which the district court dismissed as untimely.
The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded to determine, under California law, whether a four-and-a-half month delay in filing a petition with the California Court of Appeal was reasonable and whether tolling applied between state-petition rounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Tolling gaps between state petitions	Noble entitled to tolling for gaps between petitions	District court correctly limited tolling per §2244(d)(2)	Remanded to determine tolling under California law
Whether first petition remained pending while Noble filed in the Court of Appeal	First petition remained pending if timely appeal filed under California rules	Delay not tolled unless pending status established	Remanded to assess pending status under California law

Delhomme v. Ramirez, 340 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2003) (tolling under AEDPA § 2244(d)(2) and de novo review standard)
Stillman v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2003) (mailbox rule for pro se state petitions)
Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) (application remains pending through state collateral processes)
King v. Roe, 340 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2003) (separate rounds of review may be triggered by new petitions)
Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2010) (reliance on reasonableness of delays under California law for tolling)