Habteselassie v. Novak

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a “properly filed” application complies with filing requirements including: “(1) the place and time of filing; (2) the payment or waiver of any required filing fees; (3
• stating that a “properly filed” application complies with filing requirements 3 As Respondent states, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has not resolved whether a motion filed under OKLA. STAT. tit. 22, § 982a is a motion for “collateral review” under § 2244(d)(2
• defining a “properly filed” application as “one filed according to the filing requirements for a motion for state post-conviction relief” and giving examples of such requirements
• distinguishing pure filing requirements from affirmative defenses such as res judicta, which “require analysis in some manner of the substance of the claims set forth by the petitioner,” when considering whether an application has been properly filed
• “Because [the petitioner] did not file a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, the one-year period of limitation started to run ninety days after ... his state court review was thus completed.”
• “We believe that ‘a properly filed application’ is one submitted according to the state’s procedural requirements, such as the rules governing the time and place of filing.... [Federal] district courts should not inquire into its merits.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).