Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/411

 546US1

200

Unit: $U16

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

EVANS v. CHAVIS Opinion of the Court

differ signiﬁcantly from the laws of other States, i. e., that California’s “reasonable time” standard would not lead to ﬁling delays substantially longer than those in States with determinate timeliness rules. 536 U. S., at 222–223. Cali­ fornia, of course, remains free to tell us if, in this respect, we were wrong. IV As we have pointed out, supra, at 195, Chavis had one year from the date AEDPA became effective (April 24, 1996) to ﬁle a federal habeas petition. Chavis did not actually ﬁle his petition in federal district court until August 30, 2000, four years and 128 days after AEDPA’s effective date. Hence Chavis’ federal petition was timely only if “a properly ﬁled application for State post-conviction or other collateral review [was] pending” for at least three years and 128 days of this time. 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(2). Under the Ninth Cir­ cuit’s reasoning Chavis’ state collateral review proceedings were “pending” for three years and 130 days, which period (when added to the 1-year federal limitations period) makes the federal petition timely. As we have explained, however, we ﬁnd the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in conﬂict with our Saffold holding. And, after examining the record, we are convinced that the law does not permit a holding that Chavis’ federal habeas petition was timely. Chavis ﬁled his state petition for habeas review in the California Supreme Court approximately three years and one month after the California Court of Appeal released its decision denying him relief. Chavis tries to explain this long delay by arguing that he could not use the prison library to work on his petition during this time either because (1) his prison job’s hours coincided with those of the library, or (2) prison lockdowns conﬁned him to his cell. And, he adds, his inability to use the library excuses the three year and one month delay—to the point where, despite the delay, he ﬁled his petition for California Supreme Court review within a “reasonable time.”