Carey v. Saffold

Background

A California prisoner, Tony Saffold, challenged his 1990 convictions through state habeas petitions. After his direct appeal ended, he filed state petitions in the trial court and the Court of Appeal and then, 4½ months after the Court of Appeal denied relief, filed a petition in the California Supreme Court. He later filed a federal habeas petition, which a federal district court dismissed as time barred under AEDPA’s one-year limit. The Ninth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court granted review.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether an application for state collateral review is “pending” during the intervals between a lower-court denial and a timely effort to seek review in a higher court. Justice Breyer’s opinion says “pending” ordinarily covers the full state review process and therefore includes those gaps. The Court reasoned that function matters more than label, that California’s original-writ practice functions like appeals, and that tolling protects state courts’ ability to review claims. The Court answered yes to the first two questions and remanded the case for the lower court to decide whether Saffold’s 4½-month delay was reasonable under California law.

Real world impact

The decision means some prisoners’ federal filing deadlines may be paused during gaps while they seek further state review, including in California. It leaves open whether a particular delay is timely because California judges use a flexible “reasonableness” test. The ruling is not a final merits decision and was remanded for further factual and timing analysis.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy dissented, joined by three Justices, warning the ruling will disrupt the federal limitations period in many States and arguing the majority misread the statutory word “application.”