Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/407

 546US1

196

Unit: $U16

[08-22-08 15:44:46] PAGES PGT: OPIN

EVANS v. CHAVIS Opinion of the Court

turned upon whether the “pending” period included the 3­ year period between (1) the time a lower state court, the California Court of Appeal, issued its opinion (September 29, 1994), and (2) the time Chavis sought review in a higher state court, the California Supreme Court (on November 5, 1997). The Ninth Circuit held that the state collateral review appli­ cation was “pending” during this time; hence, it should add those three years to the federal 1-year limitations period, and the addition of those three years, along with various other additions, rendered the federal ﬁling timely. The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning as to why it should add the three years consists of the following: “Under our decision in Saffold, because Chavis’s No­ vember 1997 habeas petition to the California Supreme Court was denied on the merits, it was pending during the interval between the Court of Appeal decision and the Supreme Court petition and he is entitled to tolling. See [Saffold v. Carey, 312 F. 3d 1031, 1034–1036 (2002)]. When the California Supreme Court denies a habeas pe­ tition without comment or citation, we have long treated the denial as a decision on the merits. Hunter v. Aispuro, 982 F. 2d 344, 348 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the California Supreme Court’s summary denial was on the merits, and the petition was not dismissed as un­ timely. See id.; see also Delhomme v. Ramirez, 340 F. 3d 817, 819, 820 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that there was no indication that a state habeas petition was un­ timely where the California Supreme Court denied the petition without comment or citation). As a result, Chavis is entitled to tolling during [the relevant pe­ riod].” 382 F. 3d, at 926 (emphasis added). California sought certiorari on the ground that the Ninth Circuit’s decision was inconsistent with our holding in Saf­ fold. We granted the writ.