01-301 Carey v. Saffold

Listen to this article

A contrary reading is not consistent with the ordinary meaning of “pending,” which, in the present context, means until the completion of the collateral review process; i.e., until the application has achieved final resolution through the State’s postconviction proceedings. Petitioner’s reading would also produce a serious statutory anomaly. Because a federal habeas petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies as long as he has “the right under [state] law … to raise” in that State, “by any available procedure, the question presented,” sec. 2254(c), and because petitioner’s interpretation encourages state prisoners to file their petitions before the State completes a full round of collateral review, federal courts would have to contend with petitions that are in one sense unlawful (because the claims have not been exhausted) but in another sense required by law (because they would otherwise be barred by the 1-year limitations period).

250 F.3d 1262, vacated and remanded.

Local effect:

The Seventh Circuit has not directly addressed the issue, but has issued dicta consistent with the holding by the Court in this case. Fernandez v. Sternes, 227 F.3d 977, 980 (7th Cir. 2000).

Breyer, J.; Kennedy, J., dissenting.