Lead Opinion
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Cоngress established a 1-year statute of limitations for seeking federal habeas corpus relief from a state-court judgment, 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d), and further provided that the limitations period is tolled while an “application for State post-conviction or other collateral review” “is pending,” § 2244(d)(2). We must decide whether a state application is still “pending” when the state courts have entered a final judgment on the matter but a petition for certiorari has been filed in this Court. We hold that it is not.
I
Petitioner Gary Lawrence and his wife used a pipe and baseball bat to kill Michael Finken. A Florida jury eon
On January 19,1999,364 days later, Lawrence filed an application for state postconviction relief in a Florida trial court.
While Lawrence’s petition for сertiorari was pending, he filed the present federal habeas application. The Federal District Court dismissed it as untimely under §2244(d)’s 1-year limitations period. All but one day of the limitations period had lapsed during the 364 days between the time Lawrence’s conviction became final and when he filed for state postconviction relief. The limitations period was then tolled while the Florida courts entertained his state application. After the Florida Supreme Court issued its mandate, Lawrence waited another 113 days — well beyond the 1 day that remained in the limitations period — to file his federal habeas application. As a consequence, his federal application could be considered timely only if the limitations period
II
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, sets a 1-year statute of limitations for seeking federal habeas corpus relief from a state-court judgment. 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(1). This limitations period is tolled while a state prisoner seeks postconvietion relief in state court:
“The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.” § 2244(d)(2).
Based on this provision, the parties agree that AEDPA’s limitations period was tolled from the filing of Lawrencе’s petition for state postconvietion relief until the Florida Supreme Court issued its mandate affirming the denial of that petition. At issue here is whether the limitations period was also tolled during the pendency of Lawrence’s petition for certiorari to this Court seeking review of the denial of state postconvietion relief. If it was tolled, Lawrence’s federal habeas application was timely. So we must decide whether, according to § 2244(d)(2), an “application for State post-
Read naturally, the text of the statute must mean that the statute of limitations is tolled only while state courts review the application. As we stated in Carey v. Saffold,
If an application for state postconviction review were “pending” during the pendency of a certiorari petition in this Court, it is difficult to understand how a state рrisoner could exhaust state postconviction remedies without filing a petition for certiorari. Indeed, AEDPA’s exhaustion provision and tolling provision work together:
“The tolling provision of § 2244(d)(2) balances the interests served by the exhaustion requirement and the limitation period. .. .
*333 Section 2244(d)(l)’s limitation period and § 2244(d)(2)’s tolling provision, together with § 2254(b)’s exhaustion requirement, encourage litigants first to exhaust all state remedies and then to file their federal habeas petitions as soon as possible” Duncan v. Walker,533 U. S. 167 ,179, 181 (2001) (final emphasis added).
Yet we have said that state prisoners need not petition for certiorari to exhaust state remedies. Fay v. Noia,
Lawrence argues that § 2244(d)(2) should be construed to have the same meаning as § 2244(d)(1)(A), the trigger provision that determines when AEDPA’s statute of limitations begins to run. But § 2244(d)(1)(A) uses much different language from § 2244(d)(2), referring to “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” § 2244(d)(1)(A) (emphasis added). When interpreting similar language in § 2255, we explained that “direct review” has long included review by this Court. Clay v. United States,
Furthermore, § 2244(d)(1)(A) refers to the “time for seeking” direct review, which includes review by this Court under Clay. By parity of reasoning, the “time for seeking” review of a state postconviction judgment arguably would include the period for filing a certiorari petition before this Court. However, § 2244(d)(2) makes no reference to the
A more analogous statutory provision is § 2263(b)(2), which is part of AEDPA’s “opt-in” provisions for States that comply with specific requirements relating to the provision of post-conviction counsel. Under §2263, the limitations period is tolled “from the date on which the first petition for post-conviction review or other collateral relief is filed until the final State court disposition of such petition.” §2263(b)(2). Lawrence concedes that under this language there would be no tolling for certiorari petitions seeking review of state postconviction applications. And although he correctly notes that the language in § 2263 differs from the language of § 2244(d)(2), it is clear that the language used in both sections provides that tolling hinges on the pendency of state review. See § 2263(b)(2) (“until the final State court disposition of such petition”); § 2244(d)(2) (“a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review ... is pending”). Given Congress’ clear intent in § 2263 to provide tolling for certiorari petitions on direct review but not for certiorari petitions following state postconviction review, it is not surprising that Congress would make the same distinction in § 2244.
Lawrence also argues that our interpretation would result in awkward situations in which state prisoners have to file federal habeas applications while they have certiorari petitions from state postconviction proceedings pending before this Court. But these situations will also arise under the express terms of § 2263, and Lawrence admits that Congress intended that provision to preclude tolling for certiorari petitions. Brief for Petitioner 22. Because Congress was not
Contrary to Lawrence’s suggestion, our interprеtation of § 2244(d)(2) results in few practical problems. As Justice Stevens has noted, “this Court rarely grants review at this stage of the litigation even when the application for state collateral relief is supported by arguably meritorious federal constitutional claims,” choosing instead to wait for “federal habeas proceedings.” Kyles v. Whitley,
Lawrence argues that even greater anomalies result from our interpretation when the state court grants relief to a prisoner and the state petitions for certiorari. In that hypothetical, Lawrence maintains that the prisoner would arguably lack standing to file a federal habeas application immediately after the state court’s judgment (because the state court granted him relief) but would later be time barred from filing a federal habeas application if we granted certiorari and the State prevailed. Again, this particular procedural posture is extremely rare. Even so, equitable tolling may be available, in light of the arguably extraordinary circumstances and the prisoner’s diligence. See Pace v. DiGuglielmo,
III
Lawrence also argues that equitable tolling applies to his otherwise untimely claims. We have not decided whether § 2244(d) allows for equitable tolling. See ibid. Because the parties agree that equitable tolling is available, we assume without deciding that it is. To be entitled to equitable tolling, Lawrence must show “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way” and prevented timely filing. Id., at 418.
Lawrence makes several arguments in support of his contention that equitable tolling applies to his case. First, he argues that legal confusion about whether AEDPA’s limitations period is tolled by certiorari petitions justifies equitable tolling. But at the time the limitations period expired in Lawrence’s case, the Eleventh Circuit and every other Circuit to address the issue agreed that the limitations period was not tolled by certiorari petitions. See, e. g., Coates,
Second, Lawrence argues that his counsel’s mistake in miscalculating the limitations period entitles him to equitable tolling. If credited, this argument would essentially equitably toll limitations periods for every person whose attorney missed a deadline. Attorney miscalculation is simply not sufficient to warrant equitable tolling, particularly in the
Third, Lawrence argues that his case presents special circumstances because the state courts appointed and supervised his counsel. But a State’s effort to assist prisoners in postconviction proceedings does not make the State accountable for a prisoner’s delay. Lawrence has not alleged that the State prevented him from hiring his own attorney or from representing himself. It would be perverse indeed if providing prisoners with posteonviction counsel deprived States of the benefit of the AEDPA statute of limitations. See, e. g., Duncan,
Fourth, Lawrence argues that his mental incapacity justifies his reliance upon сounsel and entitles him to equitable tolling. Even assuming this argument could be legally credited, Lawrence has made no factual showing of mental incapacity. In sum, Lawrence has fallen far short of showing “extraordinary circumstances” necessary to support equitable tolling.
IV
The Court of Appeals correctly determined that the filing of a petition for certiorari before this Court does not toll the statute of limitations under § 2244(d)(2). It also correctly declined to equitably toll the limitations period in the factual circumstances of Lawrence’s case. For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Notes
Lawrence contends that delays in Florida’s program for appointing postconviction counsel and other issues outside of his control caused 298 days to pass before Florida appointed an attorney who took an active role in his postconviction case. These facts have little relevance to our analysis. Lawrence did not seek certiorari on the question whether these facts entitle him to equitable tolling. Indeed, Lawrence was able to file his state postconviction petition on time in spite of these delays. And before this Court, he argues that his attorney mistakenly missed the federal habеas deadline, not that he lacked adequate time to file a federal habeas application.
We have previously held that the word “State” modifies both the terms “post-conviction” and “other collateral review.” Duncan v. Walker,
As discussed below, we assume, as the parties do, the availability of equitable tolling under § 2244.
Dissenting Opinion
with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.
The Court today concludes that an application for state postconviction review “no longer exists” — and therefore is
I would therefore hold that 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)’s statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of a petition for certiorari.
I
Two other provisions in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1217,1223 — : §§ 2244(d)(1) and 2263(b)(2) — bear on the proper interpretation of § 2244(d)(2). The first of these, § 2244(d)(1)(A), tells us when AEDPA’s statute of limitations begins to run; it states that the trigger is “the date on which the judgment [of conviction] became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” Congress thus explicitly ordered that the clock starts, following a state conviction, when the time to file a petition for certiorari expires or, if a petition is filed, when it is decided or denied. See Clay v. United States,
According to the majority, § 2244(d)(2) cannot be interpreted similarly to encompass this Court’s review because the text of that provision “refers exclusively to ‘State post-conviction or other collateral review.’” Ante, at 333 (emphasis in original). In fact, § 2244(d)(2) refers to an “application for State post-сonviction or other collateral review.” (Emphasis added.) And it tolls the limitation period while the application is “pending,” not while it is “pending in State court.” See §2244(d)(2). Just as a judgment of conviction is not “final” until we have declined review or decided the case on the merits, see Clay,
In support of its opposing view, the majority emphasizes that § 2244(d)(2) does not include the words “time for seeking . . . review,” words included in § 2244(d)(1)(A). This difference in phrasing, the majority reasons, indicates that Congress intended to cut off tolling as soon as the highest state court renders its judgment, well before a petition for review is filed in this Court.
One can understand why Congress might have chosen an uncommon rule for the special capital cases covered by §§2261-2263, a separate chapter of the statute. By terminating tolling upon final state-court disposition, rather than extending the periоd during the pendency of a certiorari petition, Congress eliminated one source of delay in implementing the death penalty. But Congress provided that the shortened tolling period would apply only to petitions brought by prisoners in States that have established a mechanism for providing counsel in postconviction proceedings. See § 2261. An attorney, of course, is better equipped than a pro se petitioner to clear procedural hurdles, including shortened timelines.
The majority maintains that if an application for state postconviction review were considered to be “pending” while a certiorari petition remained before this Court, then a state prisoner could not exhaust state postconviction remedies without filing a petition for certiorari. Ante, at 332-333. But exhaustion and tolling serve discrete functions and need not be synchronized. The former is a prerequisite to filing for habeas relief in federal court. Exhaustion promotes principles of comity and federalism by giving state courts the first opportunity to adjudicate claims of state prisoners; that doctrine, howеver, does not necessitate this Court’s review of the state court’s determination. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,
Duncan v. Walker,
II
Not only is the majority’s reading of § 2244(d)(2) unwarranted, it will also spark the simultaneous filing of two pleadings seeking essentially the same relief. A petitioner denied relief by a State’s highest court will now have to file, contemporaneously, a petition for certiorari in this Court and a habeas petition in federal district court. Only by expeditiously filing for federal habeas relief will a prisoner ensure that the limitation period does not run before we have disposed of his or her petition for certiorari. Protective petitions will be essential, too, when we grant review of a state
The anticipatory filing in a federal district court will be all the more anomalous when a habeas petitioner prevails in state court and the State petitions for certiorari. Under the
Though recognizing this problem, the majority suggests that equitable tolling may provide a solution. But in the next breath, the majority hastens to clarify that the Court does not hold that equitable tolling is available under AEDPA. Ante, at 335, and n. 3.
By contrast, no similar problems, practical or jurisdictional, would result from a determination that an application for state postconviсtion review remains “pending” while a petition for certiorari from the state court’s decision is before this Court. Nor would such a determination create an untoward opportunity for abuse of the writ. The majority’s suggestion that prisoners would have an incentive to petition for certiorari as a delay tactic has no basis in reality in the mine run of cases. Most prisoners want to be released from custody as soon as possible, not to prolong their incarceration. They are therefore interested in the expeditious resolution of their claims.
As earlier indicated, see swpra, at 342-343 and this page, under the majority’s rule, a petitioner could achieve the
In sum, the majority’s reading is neither compelled by the text of § 2244(d)(2) nor practically sound. By cutting off tolling before this Court has had an opportunity to consider a pending petition for certiorari, the Court’s holding will unnecessarily encumber the federal courts with anticipatory filings and deprive unwitting litigants of the opportunity to pursue their constitutional claims — all without furthering the purposes of AEDPA.
* * *
For the reasons stated, I would hold that petitioner Lawrence qualifies for statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2), and would therefore reverse the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment.
It is unclear just what the majority thinks we are considering when we address a state habeas petition on certiorari. We are certainly not deciding a petition for federal habeas relief. See 28 U. S. C. §2254 (authorizing applications by persons in state custody for federal habeas review). And though we can entertain original habeas petitions, see Felker v. Turpin,
I would not reach in this proceeding cases in which a petitioner does not seek certiorari review of the state court’s judgment — i. e., cases presenting the question whether tolling ends with the decision of the State’s highest court or with the expiration of the time to file a petition for certiorari. That question is not presented here, for Lawrence timely sought this Court’s review of the denial of state postconvietion relief.
The majority inappropriately relies on Carey v. Saffold,
Notably, in Clay v. United States,
Matching §2263(b)(2)’s abbreviated tolling period, § 2263(a) provides for a shorter statute of limitations. Compare § 2244(d)(1) (“A 1-year period of limitаtion shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus ....”) with § 2263(a) (establishing a 180-day period of limitation).
See, e.g., Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon,
The majority regards the practical problems as inconsequential for we rarely grant certiorari in state habeas proceedings. Ante, at 335. For this proposition, the Court cites a pre-AEDPA case in which Justice Stevens noted that federal habeas proceedings were generally the more appropriate avenue for our consideration оf federal constitutional claims. See Kyles v. Whitley,
Satisfied that statutory tolling covers this case, I do not address petitioner’s alternative argument for equitable tolling.
Though capital petitioners may be aided by delay, they are a small minority of all petitioners. In this case, moreover, there is no indication that Lawrence was intentionally dilatory. See ante, at 330, n. 1.