De Jesus v. Acevedo

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that disposition of a state collateral attack does not reset the federal clock
• explaining that “§ 2244(d) is an independent federal rule; a state’s latitude or lassitude with respect to time does not extend the [one-year limitations period]”
• explaining that a state proceeding beginning after the federal one-year deadline has passed is irrelevant and does not toll the limitations period
• rejecting the argument that subsequent state proceedings \restart\ or \retroactively toll\ an expired limitations period
• “[A] state proceeding that does not begin until the federal year has expired is irrelevant.”
• “[A] state proceeding that does not begin until the federal year has expired is irrelevant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).