Maes v. Chavez, No. 13-16523 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of failing to provide notice of a change of address as a registered sex offender, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state superior court two days before the one year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d). The superior court denied the petition and, under California law, petitioner had the right to present a new state habeas petition to the next level of the California court system. However, petitioner chose not to file any further in state court and, instead, filed a petition for habeas corpus in district court. The district court subsequently dismissed the petition as time-barred. The court concluded that the period during which this “properly filed” state petition was “pending” was not counted against the year that petitioner had to file his federal petition; this uncounted period ended on May 7, 2012, when the superior court denied his state habeas petition, leaving him two days to file for federal habeas relief; and because petitioner waited until May 15, 2012, to file a federal petition, the district court properly dismissed it as untimely. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the dismissal as untimely of a habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The time during which the petitioner’s state-court habeas petition was pending was not counted against the one year that he had to file his federal petition. The panel held that the petitioner was not entitled to additional tolling for the time during which he could have, but did not, file a further petition for habeas relief in California state court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.