Charles C. Delaney III v. James Matesanz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that “in the context of habeas claims, courts have been loath to excuse late filings simply because a pro se prisoner misreads the law”
• concluding the statutory tolling provision is “no help” to petitioner where the relevant state filing occurred after the expiration of the one-year federal limitation period
• noting that petitioner’s filing of a motion for new trial did not trigger the tolling 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) since “the one- year period already had elapsed by that date”
• noting cases from the Second, Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits that likewise found no suspension clause violation
• finding that a first habeas petition did not toll the one year limitations period since an application for federal habeas corpus review is not an “application for State post-conviction or other collateral review” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)
• ending court’s analysis after a finding that the petitioner’s untimely habeas action would not be saved by equitably tolling

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).