Steven R. Lovasz v. Scig Supt. Donald T. Vaughn

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[i]f a petitioner complies with . . . [the] procedural requirements the state imposes, his petition, even a second or successive petition, is ‘a properly filed application’ for purposes of § 2244(d)(2)”
• explaining 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”
• explaining that Pennsylvania law allows the filing of subsequent petitions and sometimes grants relief in such proceedings, and thus the state rule regarding the granting of subsequent petitions does not affect whether a petition is \properly filed\
• explaining that a “properly filed application” for state post-conviction collateral review is “one submitted according to the state's procedural requirements, such as the rules governing the time and place of filing”
• explaining that Pennsylvania law allows the filing of subsequent petitions and sometimes grants relief in such proceedings, and thus the state rule regarding the granting of subsequent petitions does not affect whether a petition is “properly filed”
• prohibiting federal courts from considering “the merits” of a state post-conviction relief application to determine whether it was “properly filed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).