Carey v. Saffold

Summary

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Breyer joined by Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, held that AEDPA's limitations period is tolled during intervals between a lower state court's denial of collateral relief and a timely request for higher-court review. This rule applies to California's original habeas petitions because they function as appeals within its ordinary collateral review process. A state court's alternative denial on the merits does not itself establish timeliness. The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded for consideration of whether Saffold's 4½-month delay was unreasonable under California law. Justice Kennedy dissented, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas. He maintained that California's successive original petitions are distinct applications, that no application remained pending during the interval at issue, and that the majority's approach would create uncertainty and litigation in California and other States. He would have reversed.