Jesus Nino v. George Galaza, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that there is no tolling when no petition is “pending” except when a prisoner is properly using state court procedures to exhaust state court remedies on a particular post-conviction application
• broadly defining the word “pending” to include the time between a court’s ruling and timely filing of an appeal
• “In California, the supreme court, intermediate courts 28 of appeal, and superior courts all have original habeas corpus jurisdiction.”
• overruled as to gaps in time between California state habeas filings by Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 225 (2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• The limitations period only remains 26 tolled during the intervals between the state court's denial and the filing of a petition “at the next 27 state appellate level.”
• “a contrary construction would be antithetical to the entire theory of state remedy exhaustion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).