1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 3 CHRISTOPHER ARTUZ, : 4 SUPERINTENDENT, GREEN HAVEN : 5 CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, : 6 Petitioner : 7 v. : No. 99-1238 8 TONY BRUCE BENNETT : 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 10 Washington, D.C. 11 Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12 The above-entitled matter came on for oral 13 argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 14 10:55 a.m. 15 APPEARANCES: 16 JOHN M. CASTELLANO, ESQ., Kew Gardens, New York; on behalf 17 of the Petitioner. 18 DAN SCHWEITZER, ESQ., Washington, D.C.; on behalf of 19 Florida, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner. 20 ALAN S. FUTERFAS, ESQ., New York, New York; on behalf of 21 the Respondent. 22 23 24 25 1 1 C O N T E N T S 2 ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGE 3 JOHN M. CASTELLANO, ESQ. 4 On behalf of the Petitioner 3 5 ORAL ARGUMENT OF 6 DAN SCHWEITZER, ESQ. 7 On behalf of Florida, as amicus curiae, supporting 8 the Petitioner 19 9 ORAL ARGUMENT OF 10 ALAN S. FUTERFAS, ESQ. 11 On behalf of the Respondent 28 12 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF 13 JOHN M. CASTELLANO, ESQ. 14 On behalf of the Petitioner 48 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (10:55 a.m.) 3 CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: We'll hear argument 4 next in Number 99-1238, Christopher Artuz v. Tony Bruce 5 Bennett. 6 Mr. Castellano. 7 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JOHN M. CASTELLANO 8 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 9 MR. CASTELLANO: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it 10 please the Court: 11 The issue before the Court in this case is 12 whether a State prisoner can extend the 1-year limitations 13 period for Federal habeas corpus petitions by filing 14 repetitive motions in State court that are procedurally 15 barred from review under State law. There are at least 16 three reasons why these motions should not be afforded 17 tolling. 18 QUESTION: I take it it all comes up because 19 we're construing the language, properly filed, in the 20 applicable statutory provision. 21 MR. CASTELLANO: Absolutely, Your Honor, yes. 22 These State post conviction motions, Your Honor, cause 23 unnecessary delays from repetitive litigation that advance 24 no purpose of the tolling provision. They provide State 25 prisoners with a simple expedient to defeat the statute of 3 1 limitations at will, and allowing tolling for such motions 2 undermines core principles of comity and federalism. 3 They're at the heart of this Court's habeas corpus 4 jurisprudence, and at the core of the AEDPA. 5 The statutory language supports the position of 6 the States here. Under a plain reading of the statutory 7 language the words, properly filed, must mean something 8 more than simply filed. 9 QUESTION: Well, the courts are all over the lot 10 on what the words, properly filed, mean. It seems to me 11 there are several different approaches. Maybe just 12 properly filed in the sense of being timely and in the 13 proper place, or maybe getting permission from the State, 14 a certificate of appealability if the State requires it, 15 that kind of thing. 16 MR. CASTELLANO: Yes, Your Honor. 17 QUESTION: So not every lower court has thought 18 that it also encompasses a review of substance to see 19 whether it's procedurally barred. 20 MR. CASTELLANO: Yes, that's right, Your Honor. 21 There are many -- 22 QUESTION: And I guess the court has to later 23 decide whether it's procedurally barred. The State court 24 presumably would reach that question, or the Federal 25 court, in due course, wouldn't it? 4 1 MR. CASTELLANO: Yes. 2 QUESTION: The Federal habeas court would, I 3 suppose, at the end of the day have to address that issue. 4 MR. CASTELLANO: Yes, absolutely, Your Honor. 5 QUESTION: Yes. 6 MR. CASTELLANO: Here there are several 7 different definitions. Even among the cases upon which 8 the respondent relies, and that demonstrates, if anything, 9 that there is some ambiguity in the language of the 10 statute. The word properly is not easily susceptible of 11 definition. Here -- 12 QUESTION: And what is your definition of 13 properly filed? 14 MR. CASTELLANO: It's this, Your Honor. There's 15 really a three-step analysis, if you will. The first step 16 is this. Properly filed must mean something more than 17 filed, in addition to the ordinary rules of statutory 18 construction, which would so indicate. 19 In addition, here Congress used the word filed 20 24 times in the habeas corpus statute but modified it with 21 the word properly only once, so it must have meant that 22 the words properly filed had something more than an 23 inconsequential or nominal meaning. 24 Second, there's a plain sense, plain common 25 sense reading of the words, properly filed, under which a 5 1 document, to be properly filed, has to be filed in the 2 right place, in the right court, and even some of the 3 cases upon which the respondent relies so indicated. 4 QUESTION: That gets you to the situation where 5 the petition is filed in a court that didn't even have the 6 authority to grant any sort of relief. 7 MR. CASTELLANO: Absolutely, Your Honor. 8 QUESTION: But you want to go further than that. 9 MR. CASTELLANO: Yes, Your Honor. We say that 10 here this Court did not have the authority to grant the 11 relief requested because there was an absolute mandatory 12 State procedural bar in the way. 13 QUESTION: And is that the third part of your 14 test, or the second part of your -- 15 MR. CASTELLANO: That's the second part of the 16 test. The third part of the test is that a -- is a plain 17 common sense understanding of the words, right place, or 18 right court, under which a document can't be filed in the 19 right court if it's filed in a court that can't entertain 20 the merits of it. That's really the third -- 21 QUESTION: Well, but does it follow that the 22 court can't entertain the merits? I mean, a procedural 23 bar is something that can be waived and, as 24 counterintuitive as it may be, I mean, we occasionally do 25 get cases before this Court in which there seems to have 6 1 been a procedural bar that the State didn't invoke, so it 2 seems to me that we're not in the position of even being 3 able to analyze this on a merely -- or I shouldn't say 4 merely, on a jurisdictional basis, because it really 5 doesn't go to the State court's jurisdiction. It goes to 6 the discretionary decision by the State prosecutor to 7 invoke the bar, and so I don't think we can do it on the 8 third prong that you mentioned, which I understood was in 9 a sense in effect a jurisdictional prong. 10 MR. CASTELLANO: No, Your Honor, the third prong 11 is not a jurisdictional prong. It's simply a prong that 12 says that if the State court can't, under the State's 13 procedural rules, adjudicate the merits, then that motion 14 is not properly filed in that State court. 15 QUESTION: You mean, if it can't adjudicate the 16 merits it's not properly filed. 17 MR. CASTELLANO: It's not properly filed if it 18 can't adjudicate the merits. 19 QUESTION: No, but it can adjudicate the merits. 20 It can adjudicate the merits if the State doesn't invoke 21 the bar. 22 MR. CASTELLANO: Not in this case. First of 23 all, Your Honor, these are absolute mandatory bars, and 24 there's no indication that if the State waives these bars, 25 that the Court has the authority to examine these 7 1 issues -- 2 QUESTION: But doesn't this -- doesn't your 3 answer, and I realize I'm shifting my position here, but 4 doesn't your answer point out another difficulty of your 5 position, and that is, a Federal court is, it seems to me, 6 hard-pressed in these cases if it's got to decide whether 7 a particular bar is jurisdictional or whether it's not 8 jurisdictional under State law, and this is just adding 9 one more complication, as against the position of the 10 other side, which takes a kind of a plain language, almost 11 physical act interpretation. 12 You're putting yet another burden on the State 13 court to decide whether a bar is jurisdictional or not, 14 and it seems to me that that counts against adopting your 15 interpretation. 16 MR. CASTELLANO: No, Your Honor, I don't believe 17 we are imposing an additional bar. I wouldn't use the 18 sense jurisdictional. I would use mandatory State 19 procedural bar which, under the procedural default 20 doctrine, is a concept that the Federal courts are very 21 familiar with. 22 This Court in Teague v. Lane, for example, did 23 the type of analysis that we're advancing here. In other 24 words, it decided whether or not to send a State prisoner 25 back to State court in order to pursue a State remedy, or, 8 1 on the other hand, whether that State remedy is no longer 2 available -- 3 QUESTION: Well, there's no question that the 4 Federal courts in a sense can do this. Sometimes the 5 Federal courts have to do it, but it seems to me that it 6 does count against your position that a Federal court will 7 have to go through this every time a State court issues a 8 laconic one-word order, denied. 9 QUESTION: And that essentially usurps the 10 function, or at least duplicates the function of the State 11 court and is, it seems to me, contrary to the Federal 12 interests that underlie this statute. 13 MR. CASTELLANO: I don't believe it duplicates 14 the function of the State courts at all. I believe that 15 simply it shows respect to the State court procedural 16 rules and respect to the individual State court decisions 17 that have been -- 18 QUESTION: Could I -- 19 QUESTION: Well, presumably the State court made 20 that determination when it made the underlying order, and 21 it seems to me that this is really contrary to the 22 federalism concerns that in large part were the basis of 23 the statute. You're asking the Federal courts to make a 24 determination which brushes up against the merits, just in 25 order to determine the tolling provision. 9 1 MR. CASTELLANO: Actually, Your Honor, what the 2 Court could do is to adopt the Harris v. Reid plain 3 statement rule, and the Coleman exception to the Harris v. 4 Reid plain statement rule and in this -- so that 5 ordinarily there would be a plain statement on behalf of 6 the State court applying the particular State procedural 7 bar in that individual case. 8 QUESTION: Let's back up just a minute, Mr. -- I 9 suppose you'd be on stronger ground if you're talking not 10 about a procedural bar to the merits in the sense of plain 11 statement, that sort of thing. Supposing you just have a 12 failure to file within the time limit provided by the 13 State. 14 MR. CASTELLANO: Yes, Your Honor, that's -- 15 QUESTION: I take it you believe that in order 16 to be properly filed the thing must be timely. 17 MR. CASTELLANO: Yes, absolutely, Your Honor. 18 QUESTION: Even though perhaps in a pleading 19 sense, in the New York courts, a statute of limitations, 20 if it isn't pleaded by the defendant, might be waived. 21 MR. CASTELLANO: Right, Your Honor. In New York 22 there is no statute of limitations for post conviction 23 review, but certainly in many States, such as Florida, 24 which is represented here, there's a statute of 25 limitations that does have exceptions to it, and as to 10 1 which there should be some judicial review with regard to 2 the application of that particular -- 3 QUESTION: So then the Federal court would have 4 to determine not only if there is a procedural bar, but 5 what exceptions exist, and whether this particular case 6 fits within that exception, like statute of limitations 7 often have tolling accoutrements, so you're getting the 8 Federal court involved in a lot of up-front decisonmaking 9 that substitutes for the State, and my question is I think 10 the same as Justice Kennedy's. That is, you're asking the 11 Federal court, as it does in the Erie area, to make a 12 determination of what State law is. 13 Isn't it more respectful of the States to say, 14 State -- State court, this is for you to decide. We don't 15 know how to apply your procedural bar rule. We'd rather 16 have you tell us, does this fall within an exception? 17 It seems to me that ordering the Federal court 18 to decide the State law question is not as respectful of 19 the States as it would be to say, that's a question that 20 the State courts should decide. 21 MR. CASTELLANO: Well, Your Honor, in the 22 ordinary case the State court will have already decided 23 that very particular issue and applied that procedural bar 24 to the very case that's now in front of the -- 25 QUESTION: But here we don't know, because the 11 1 State order is opaque. It doesn't tell us. 2 MR. CASTELLANO: I think the application here is 3 a little bit different. If you apply, for example, the 4 Harris v. Reid plain statement rule, and the Coleman 5 exception to it, we fall within that, so for example, 6 under Coleman this Court held that there was no need to -- 7 there was no need to have a plain statement, because from 8 all the facts and circumstances it didn't fairly appear 9 that the State court decision was based primarily on 10 Federal law or interwoven with Federal law. That's 11 exactly the situation that we have here as well. 12 QUESTION: The Federal court is always going to 13 have to decide, when this question comes up, whether or 14 not the State petition was, quote, properly filed. I 15 mean, that was Congress' choice. I mean, it isn't 16 necessarily any court's choice. 17 MR. CASTELLANO: Yes, absolutely, Your Honor, 18 and it's the exact same interpretation. 19 QUESTION: And the question is what properly 20 filed meant, and one thing to say, we look to State law to 21 see if this is an application for whatever, and we look to 22 see that it is, in fact, filed in the court, the stamp and 23 everything, there it is in the properly filed, in the 24 right court. It seems to me that those mechanical things 25 are easy for a Federal court to check, but going beyond 12 1 that, this is a rather complex operation. 2 MR. CASTELLANO: The problem with reducing the 3 word properly to such a limited view, to a view that just 4 says, rudimentary filing requirements, is in part this. 5 That means that a document that satisfies service and 6 notice requirements only, but is filed in, for example, a 7 surrogate's court, or a court that's -- can't possibly 8 decide the claim, might be included. 9 QUESTION: So what? 10 QUESTION: Well, but if -- I suppose that a 11 State could have its own State rule for second or 12 successive petitions in State court for post conviction 13 relief, such as a requirement that the applicant get a 14 certificate from some reviewing court as a prerequisite to 15 filing the successive petition, and if there were that 16 kind of mechanical requirement, just like the requirement 17 for a filing fee, or filing in a certain court or within a 18 certain time, all those things are in the nature of kind 19 of mechanical rules, so the State can certainly protect 20 itself, it seems to me. 21 MR. CASTELLANO: Yes, Your Honor, the State can 22 protect itself. The problem with that is this. There are 23 only very few States that enacted their post conviction 24 review schemes in terms of prefiling review, and it would 25 mean -- 13 1 QUESTION: Yes, but it's open to a State to do 2 it. 3 MR. CASTELLANO: It's open to a State to -- 4 QUESTION: I mean, there's no reason why we have 5 to construct something to save the State that the State 6 can take care of on its own. 7 MR. CASTELLANO: But it would be to assume that 8 Congress meant that it's statute would not have any real 9 or meaningful effect in all of those States in which there 10 was no prefiling review, and that it would be -- 11 QUESTION: Well, it does have a meaningful 12 effect in the sense of looking to any State requirements 13 for timing, place, et cetera. 14 MR. CASTELLANO: Except that that view, the 15 respondent's view and the Second Circuit's view here 16 doesn't look to all of the procedural rules. It looks to 17 a very small subset. 18 QUESTION: Well, maybe we should expand it 19 slightly, but not to include a procedural bar and 20 substantive law component. 21 QUESTION: We don't have to take either all one 22 or all the other. 23 MR. CASTELLANO: Absolutely, Your Honor, yes. 24 QUESTION: If we go beyond the mechanical, 25 mechanical things are easy to check, but once you get 14 1 beyond the mechanical, you both have the Federal courts 2 interpreting State law later, and it seems to me something 3 worse. Any reasonable defendant who has a lawyer, 4 certainly, who has any kind of complicated State issue, 5 will know that he better file a protective habeas petition 6 in Federal court. 7 Now, what's the Federal judge supposed to do 8 when he gets that habeas petition -- 9 MR. CASTELLANO: That -- 10 QUESTION: -- prior to the State court deciding 11 the issue, and that's going to happen all over the place. 12 He now has to decide questions of State law which the 13 State court might later say he's wrong about or risk 14 dismissing it, or avoid the exhaustion problem. It sounds 15 like a real mess as soon as you depart from the 16 mechanical. 17 MR. CASTELLANO: No, not at all, Your Honor, 18 because that's the same position that that Federal court 19 is in if it's deciding whether to send that petitioner 20 back to State court to exhaust his State remedies. We 21 say, make that exact same determination. 22 In other words, when it comes to Federal court, 23 you make that Rose v. Lundy determination. Are you going 24 to send that petitioner back to State court, or are you 25 going to presume that there's a State court procedural bar 15 1 that's in the way, that renders that remedy no longer 2 available. 3 Make that determination, and that's a 4 determination that's made regularly by the Second Circuit 5 with regard to the very same procedural rules that are at 6 issue in this case, and made regularly with regard -- 7 with -- by the Federal circuit courts in New York with 8 regard to the very same procedural rules that are at issue 9 in this case. 10 QUESTION: But I'm -- 11 QUESTION: What difference does it -- go ahead. 12 QUESTION: Well, I'm puzzled. There's 13 litigation in the State court over whether or not a 14 procedural bar exists. While that litigation goes on, 15 what is a Federal judge supposed to do, decide the issue? 16 MR. CASTELLANO: Your Honor -- 17 QUESTION: Or say the remedy hasn't been 18 exhausted? 19 MR. CASTELLANO: There's more than one 20 alternative. One of the reasonable alternatives would 21 just be to dismiss the case under Rose v. Lundy to allow 22 the exhaustion to take place. 23 QUESTION: Right, and then it takes more than a 24 year to resolve the procedural bar issue in the State 25 court, and eventually you end up saying you're 16 1 procedurally barred. Why do you need the statute of 2 limitation, then? Why don't you just rely on the 3 procedural bar? 4 MR. CASTELLANO: The statute of limitations is a 5 timing device, separate from the procedural bar. In other 6 words -- 7 QUESTION: Yes, but whether the statute has run 8 or not depends on whether or not the case was procedurally 9 barred, and if it was procedurally barred, why do you need 10 the statute of limitations? 11 MR. CASTELLANO: The procedural bar goes to 12 individual claims. The statute of limitations goes to 13 the -- 14 QUESTION: Right, but you find in the State all 15 the claims were procedurally barred, otherwise the statute 16 would not have run, and if they find that, why do you need 17 the statute of limitations? 18 MR. CASTELLANO: You need -- well, you need the 19 statute of limitations for other types of cases. 20 QUESTION: That are not procedurally barred. 21 MR. CASTELLANO: No -- 22 QUESTION: Under your rule, what would happen if 23 there were some petition -- some claims that were 24 procedurally barred and some that were not? 25 MR. CASTELLANO: Under our position, that 17 1 petitioner would receive exhaustion, and to go back to 2 Justice Stevens' example, the court should dismiss that, 3 or could, at least, dismiss that claim under Rose v. Lundy 4 and during that period of time, that period of time in 5 which the State -- in which the State prisoner was 6 exhausting State remedies, he should receive tolling if 7 this was a proper dismissal under Rose v. Lundy. That 8 should be an automatic result of the dismissal under Rose 9 v. Lundy, is to allow the tolling for the petitioner. 10 QUESTION: Yes, but then I'm asking you, at the 11 end of this 14-month litigation in the State procedure the 12 State court ends up saying, all the claims are 13 procedurally barred. Why do you need a statute of 14 limitations if that's the holding of the State court? 15 MR. CASTELLANO: You need the statute of 16 limitations because that petitioner, first of all 17 shouldn't be -- that petitioner, if he knows beforehand 18 that those claims are procedurally barred, of course, 19 shouldn't be -- 20 QUESTION: Well, I'm assuming he doesn't know 21 until the 14 months of litigation in the State court have 22 resolved the issue, and there are lots of times 23 MR. CASTELLANO: Right. 24 QUESTION: -- it's a contested matter. 25 MR. CASTELLANO: Well, you need the statute of 18 1 limitations for one thing to keep that -- to encourage, 2 not just that petitioner, but other petitioners who don't 3 have to go through that process of 14 months of litigation 4 into Federal court more quickly. 5 QUESTION: But they all have to go through that 6 process if the State's going to plead a procedural bar. 7 MR. CASTELLANO: I'm sorry, Justice -- 8 QUESTION: I really think there's tension 9 between the exhaustion rule and your interpretation of 10 properly filed. 11 MR. CASTELLANO: Not at all, Your Honor. 12 That -- this interpretation follows the exhaustion rule to 13 a tee. It says that if you would send this case back to 14 State court for exhaustion purposes, then this petitioner 15 receives tolling. If you wouldn't receive -- if you 16 wouldn't send it back for exhaustion purposes, then you 17 don't receive tolling. 18 I'd like to reserve the remainder of my time for 19 rebuttal. 20 QUESTION: Very well, Mr. Castellano. 21 Mr. Schweitzer, we'll hear from you. 22 ORAL ARGUMENT OF DAN SCHWEITZER 23 ON BEHALF OF FLORIDA, AS AMICUS CURIAE, 24 SUPPORTING THE PETITIONER 25 MR. SCHWEITZER: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it 19 1 please the Court: 2 The language, structure, and objectives of 3 section 2244(d) tell us that Congress intended the tolling 4 provision to harmonize the limitations period and the 5 exhaustion doctrine. Respondent's construction of the 6 term, properly filed application, undermines the 7 limitation period and reads the word properly out of the 8 statute. 9 I'd like to turn to some of the federalism 10 questions that were raised in terms of how the State's 11 construction of the term furthers the State's federalism 12 interests. It does so when we recognize the fact that the 13 limitations period itself was enacted by Congress to 14 further the State's comity concerns by speeding up the 15 date at which the Federal habeas process will take place. 16 Congress was motivated by the fact that it often 17 took many, many years for the Federal courts to possibly 18 order a new trial, or generally to provide finality to the 19 State conviction. It may be that as a consequence of the 20 State rule there will be a protective Federal filing such 21 as that which Justice Breyer and Justice Stevens 22 mentioned. 23 Notwithstanding the fact that this may take 24 place at the same time that the State proceeding is 25 occurring, it still furthers the State's comity interest, 20 1 because often the State -- the Federal court will be able 2 to recognize that the application is plainly procedurally 3 barred, at which point the Federal court can proceed to 4 rule on the habeas application and would be doing so many 5 years sooner than it otherwise would have been, which is 6 precisely the goal that Congress had in enacting the 7 limitation -- 8 QUESTION: What about the case where it just 9 isn't clear? I mean, the easy cases can sort themselves 10 out under either interpretation, I think, but what about 11 the cases which are tougher? 12 MR. SCHWEITZER: Where it's not clear, and so 13 the prisoner isn't certain -- 14 QUESTION: It's a difficult -- you know -- 15 MR. SCHWEITZER: Right. 16 QUESTION: -- frivolous cases aren't really that 17 tough. I mean, we deal with them. But the cases that 18 might -- may have some merit, and you're not sure, and the 19 State law's uncertain, those are the ones that take the 20 time. 21 MR. SCHWEITZER: Though I should make clear, a 22 large percentage of these cases will be the frivolous 23 ones, the second, third, fifth applications, but -- 24 QUESTION: It's no problem, if the Federal court 25 sees somebody abusing the State system this is an 21 1 equitable statute, tolling, and they can deal with it. 2 But I'm worried about the complicated, close cases. What 3 happens there? 4 MR. SCHWEITZER: Right. In that case where the 5 protective Federal habeas filing is made, and the Federal 6 court looks at the case and says, it's a close call 7 whether or not the State procedure is available, so it 8 might be possible for the State remedies to be exhausted. 9 At that point the Federal court would dismiss 10 the Federal application under Rose v. Lundy. 11 QUESTION: It goes back, and now the State court 12 says, oh, well, I guess, in fact, there's a independent 13 State ground, or the statute of limitations wasn't tolled 14 under State law, et cetera. Now what happens? 15 MR. SCHWEITZER: Right. If, upon return to the 16 State court, the State court says, in fact, this is 17 procedurally barred, in that case we believe would be an 18 appropriate instance for equitable tolling to toll that 19 time back -- 20 QUESTION: How could you, under your 21 interpretation? It's more than a year. 22 MR. SCHWEITZER: Right, but the time back in 23 State court would equitably toll the Federal 1-year 24 limitations provision. 25 QUESTION: Even though it turns out that, in 22 1 fact, it's not -- even though it was in the wrong court, 2 it should have gone to the surrogate court, or something? 3 MR. SCHWEITZER: Well, if the Federal court, 4 upon looking at the habeas petition says, this might, in 5 fact, be a proper case to be back in the State courts, 6 there may be those State remedies available. If the 7 prisoner properly invokes those very State remedies that 8 the Federal court had in mind -- 9 QUESTION: It was wrong. It was wrong under 10 State -- 11 MR. SCHWEITZER: Well, the Federal -- 12 QUESTION: The Federal court was wrong. It was 13 a close question. 14 MR. SCHWEITZER: But in essence, since the State 15 prisoner shouldn't be penalized for the Federal court 16 being wrong, we think that would be an appropriate time 17 for the limitations period to be tolled. It's presumptive 18 that Federal statutes have equitable tolling available, 19 and we don't challenge that here. 20 QUESTION: Mr. Schweitzer, the problem I have 21 with your position is, I don't know how you can get out of 22 the word properly the kind of line that you want to draw. 23 I can see how you can say, properly filed means, you know, 24 the technical things, the proper court, the name's right, 25 that I can understand, but you want to say it includes 23 1 procedural bars, that the claim is invalid on the merits 2 because of a -- it's invalid because of a procedural bar. 3 If that is embraced within the word, properly 4 filed, why wouldn't the fact that the claim is 5 unmeritorious for a substantive reason be included as 6 well? It's not properly filed if it's a -- you know, it's 7 a ridiculous, nonmeritorious complaint. How do you get 8 the word properly to cover only procedural bars and not 9 substantive bars? 10 MR. SCHWEITZER: Well, the first answer to that 11 question is that we think it makes sense to believe that 12 Congress took the word -- inserted the word properly here 13 and created the phrase, properly filed application, 14 borrowing from its past use of the word properly with 15 respect to the terms, proper exhaustion, and proper 16 presentation, both of which deal with the presentation of 17 claims to State courts which, if it's properly done, 18 provides the State courts with the opportunity to rule on 19 the merits, regardless of how the court ultimately rules 20 on that merits decision. 21 In terms of the question respondents focus on, 22 which is, how does properly modify file, it's just that it 23 means more than mere filing requirements. Respondents 24 treat the word properly as merely modifying how a document 25 is filed, almost the physical manner by which it's filed, 24 1 but properly can also be read to modify the question of 2 whether the document should have been filed in the first 3 place. 4 If the lawyer drafts a complaint that clearly 5 violates Rule 11, but then files that complaint anyway, 6 that's an improper act on the part of the attorney, and it 7 would be an improperly filed complaint. 8 QUESTION: So also if it makes a frivolous 9 merits claim. You could say that's not properly filed. 10 There's no substance to it. 11 MR. SCHWEITZER: Well, in the habeas corpus 12 context, where there's such a focus on compliance with the 13 various procedural bars, and where the procedural default 14 context expressly exists to accommodate the situations 15 where State procedural rules aren't complied with, but 16 prisoners aren't considered to have done anything wrong if 17 they have exhausted their State remedies but lost on the 18 merits, we think that same -- Congress had that same mind 19 set here, where the prisoner isn't treated as having done 20 anything wrong, having done anything improper or incorrect 21 by bringing losing claims, but the prisoner has done 22 something wrong by bringing claims that are barred by 23 mandatory State court rules, and then attempting to delay 24 the limitations period, possibly indefinitely, by filing 25 repetitive, improper claims in the State court. 25 1 QUESTION: Mr. Schweitzer, does Florida have 2 either a statute of limitations or any rules taking care 3 of the repetitive and successive filing problem as a 4 matter of State law? 5 MR. SCHWEITZER: Well, Florida has a 2-year 6 limitations on noncapital cases and a 1-year limitation on 7 capital cases, both of which have exceptions for new facts 8 or new law, and mere existence of that exception means 9 that under respondent's theory you can violate the time 10 bar, and that's -- and it would still be a properly filed 11 application. 12 QUESTION: Mr. Schweitzer, you have conceded, I 13 think, in agreement with Mr. Castellano, that Congress 14 could have been, as he put it in his brief, more specific 15 in defining the scope of the tolling provision. 16 MR. SCHWEITZER: Yes. 17 QUESTION: And you say that -- well, Mr. 18 Castellano says the reason probably that Congress was not 19 more specific, that 1) it's Members couldn't agree on a 20 definition, or because the types of State procedures that 21 could be invoked were so varied, Congress thought it best 22 to leave the application of the provision for the courts, 23 but that seems -- why shouldn't the court say, well, 24 Congress, we'll just go as far as you did. You were 25 ambiguous about this. You left room for one 26 1 interpretation or the other. We're going to pick the one 2 that favors the petitioner. 3 MR. SCHWEITZER: I wouldn't want to speculate as 4 to why Congress didn't do a better job of defining the 5 exact contours of the tolling provision, but I don't think 6 that an ambiguity in the statute requires an answer one 7 way or the other. I think for better or for worse we're 8 left with the task of trying to determine what makes sense 9 in light of the limitations period generally. 10 QUESTION: Well, it's not one or the other, 11 because everyone would agree that at least it's got to be 12 an application for habeas corpus, and has got to be filed 13 in the court, so it's not -- it's -- that's -- no question 14 about it. The question is whether there is something more 15 than that, and I'm asking why the Federal court should 16 read something into the statute that Congress didn't 17 clearly put there. 18 MR. SCHWEITZER: Because the problem, without 19 reading more into it, is that it would essentially allow 20 subsection 2 of 2244(d), the tolling provision, undermine 21 subsection 1, the limitations period, and it's an unusual 22 provision of law which defeats itself. 23 As Mr. Castellano mentioned, if subsection 2, 24 the tolling provision, is read as respondent suggests, 25 then repetitive filings can be made by the prisoners who, 27 1 at will, can extend the limitations period indefinitely, 2 and there's certainly no -- 3 QUESTION: Not if the States, as Justice 4 O'Connor suggested, enacts one of these -- you have to get 5 permission before you can file such an application. 6 QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Schweitzer. 7 Mr. Futerfas. Am I pronouncing your name 8 correctly? 9 MR. FUTERFAS: Yes, you are, Mr. Chief Justice. 10 ORAL ARGUMENT OF ALAN S. FUTERFAS 11 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 12 MR. FUTERFAS: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it 13 please the Court: 14 The State of New York has stood before you for 15 the last half-an-hour, as well as Attorney General from 16 Florida, and argued for a rule which, if adopted, will 17 ensure that thousands of prisoners will file their Federal 18 habeas petitions before exhausting their State post 19 conviction remedies. 20 If adopted, it will be malpractice for a lawyer, 21 we respectfully submit, not to file in Federal court 22 first, or as soon as possible, because the defendant and 23 the lawyer will never know under the State's rule whether 24 or not they are properly filed until it is determined 25 whether or not their claims are procedurally barred. 28 1 We respectfully suggest that that rule is 2 inconsistent with 2244(d)(2), other provisions of the 3 AEDPA, and this Court's decisions which encourage 4 exhaustion. 5 QUESTION: What do you think the term properly 6 filed means, Mr. Futerfas? 7 MR. FUTERFAS: As we state in the brief in the 8 Second Circuit, and in fact the majority of the circuits, 9 I tend to disagree with petitioner. There are a number of 10 circuits who have construed this in -- 11 QUESTION: I mean your position. 12 MR. FUTERFAS: Our position is, a properly filed 13 application is an application which is delivered to the 14 custodian designated to receive it in accordance with the 15 rules governing its acceptance for filing. 16 QUESTION: Well, supposing, to use Mr. 17 Castellano's example, there's a habeas corpus petition 18 that is delivered to the clerk of a surrogate's court 19 which has only probate jurisdiction? 20 MR. FUTERFAS: It's not properly filed. 21 Properly filed -- the word properly, we respectfully 22 submit, has meaning, has real meaning. Prisoners who want 23 to exhaust their State remedies, Congress has created a 24 simple mechanism for them to do so, but they must follow 25 it accurately. They must file the right document with the 29 1 right custodian in the right time. It's a burden 2 placed -- 3 QUESTION: And also, a timely filing? 4 MR. FUTERFAS: That's correct. 5 QUESTION: And in the correct court that would 6 have the authority to grant relief? 7 MR. FUTERFAS: Yes. When we look at what -- 8 QUESTION: How about a State requirement for a 9 successive position, petition that there be some -- 10 something akin to a certificate of appealability? 11 MR. FUTERFAS: They have to require -- our 12 position is -- our position, we respectfully submit, 13 respects State court systems. If a State court sets up a 14 procedure for its judicial screening, prisoners are on 15 notice through the word properly that they have to file 16 that. 17 They have to get it to the right recipient, 18 whether it's a judge or a clerk, and they have to put it 19 in the right document, on the right time, and we think 20 it's a simple mechanism, but it's one that -- you know, 21 Congress has kind of allocated burdens and risks here. 22 They want State petitioners to be able to exhaust and not 23 have to worry about making a protective filing. They 24 don't have to worry about going to Federal court, but they 25 have to do it right. 30 1 QUESTION: Your quarrel then, really, with the 2 petitioner is on the procedural bar type of thing, where 3 it's uncertain whether this can be raised. 4 MR. FUTERFAS: That's exactly the problem. 5 If -- and I call it, for lack of a better word, the 6 uncertainty principle. 7 If a petitioner, or the lawyer knows with 8 certainty that tolling will be affected, the lawyer will 9 not have to file a protective filing, but if there's 10 uncertainty as to whether tolling will be affected, that 11 uncertainty creates, there's no question, as I stated in 12 my opening statement, that it be almost malpractice not to 13 file a protective filing, and what's wrong with protective 14 filings? 15 I think the petitioner takes a somewhat relaxed 16 view of how Federal district court judges are going to 17 view protective filings. I don't think Federal district 18 court judges are going to be happy with them at all. 19 What really will happen if there's uncertainty of tolling 20 is that all State -- word gets around quickly in the 21 jails. We all know that. This Court knows that. 22 These State prisoners will begin filing first in 23 Federal court, and what they will be seeking and obtaining 24 is essentially a declaratory judgment by the Federal judge 25 on State substantive and procedural law, so they'll have a 31 1 Federal judge in the first instance say, okay, these three 2 claims are exhausted, these four claims are not exhausted, 3 so now you can go back. 4 And now, of course, the certainty of tolling, 5 which Congress set up to be in the mechanism of the 6 properly filed application, now that certainty of tolling 7 is resulted by pronouncement of a Federal district court 8 judge and, of course, this increases a Federal judge's 9 workload immeasurably, because many of these claims, or 10 some percentage of these claims where a State prisoner is 11 exhausting will be resolved. Maybe the State prisoner 12 will get relief on the merits in State court, and they'll 13 never have to bother a Federal district court judge. But 14 if there's uncertainty of tolling, the Federal judge will 15 deal with all these cases before they're allowed to run 16 through the State court system. 17 And the other thing to, I think respectfully to 18 focus on is, as this Court stated unanimously in Michael 19 Williams v. Taylor, quote, we start as always with the 20 language of the statute. This statute says, properly 21 filed application. Properly is an adverb, modifying the 22 verb filed. The subject of that phrase is an application. 23 The State and amici have suggested that although 24 Congress chose the words, properly filed application, it 25 really meant to say something else, a properly presented 32 1 claim, an application presenting claims the defendant has 2 a right to raise, but in fact, Congress had all of that 3 phraseology and language at its disposal, and it's used 4 that very language in other parts of the statute. 5 For instance, where Congress sought to define 6 exhaustion, they did so. 2254(c), as this Court's 7 recognized in the Wainwright and Duckworth and O'Sullivan 8 decisions, that statute defines exhaustion, so if 9 Congress -- if Congress wanted to write a statute that 10 conditioned tolling on actual exhaustion, they could have 11 simply said that tolling will occur with a properly filed 12 application presenting questions the applicant has the 13 right to raise by any available procedure. That language 14 was right there for Congress to use just a few pages 15 later, after 2244. Congress did not use that language. 16 Where Congress sought to limit successive 17 applications and predicate tolling on one application 18 only, they did so not in one but in two places, 19 2244(b)(3), which requires judicial approval, and 2263 in 20 the opting provision, where you have tolling for a first 21 post conviction application, so Congress had that language 22 available it could have used. 23 In the very statute at issue, 2244, Congress 24 specifically sought to address a claim presented in an 25 application. Those series of words occur a number of 33 1 times, at 2244(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(4). 2 So all of this language that the petitioner 3 suggests really, Congress really meant to say, was used, 4 and under this Court's decisions we start with the 5 language of the statute and I think in this case we also 6 end with the language of the statute. 7 QUESTION: May I ask a question about the 8 operation of the State procedural bar in this scenario? 9 Let's assume that as your opponent suggests, that there 10 is, in fact, a State procedural bar in this case, and 11 let's assume that you're right that that doesn't factor 12 into this 1-year statute of limitations determination by 13 the Federal court. Then what impact, if any, would the 14 State procedural bar have on the Federal habeas corpus 15 proceeding? 16 MR. FUTERFAS: I'm not sure if I understand Your 17 Honor's question. 18 QUESTION: In other words, there is a State -- 19 the State will not hear this case because its court will 20 determine there's a procedural bar. Let's say that 21 Mr. Castellano is right about that, what a State court 22 would do in this very case, but that you are right that 23 that kind of complex determination should not be made by 24 the Federal court, so the Federal court just checks to see 25 that it is an application, and that it has indeed been 34 1 filed in the right court. 2 What impact, if any, does the State rule that 3 this claim is procedurally barred in State court have in 4 the Federal habeas corpus proceeding? 5 MR. FUTERFAS: Well, in terms of tolling, I 6 don't think it would have any effect. Rules governing the 7 granting of an application, which is I think what Your 8 Honor's question concerns, rules governing whether an 9 application shall be granted, whether relief shall be 10 granted, are different than State rules governing the 11 filing of the application, so in one instance whether a 12 defendant's claims are procedurally barred or not should 13 not have any effect on whether they toll the statute. We 14 suggest that properly filed application was meant to 15 promote federalism, promote defendants -- 16 QUESTION: Yeah -- 17 MR. FUTERFAS: -- and encourage them to exhaust. 18 QUESTION: -- I'm accepting both their position 19 that this is, in fact, procedurally barred in the State, 20 your position that that doesn't -- you don't get into that 21 on the statute of limitations question. I'm asking you 22 then, when there's no time bar in the Federal court, what 23 effect, if any, does the State rule that this claim would 24 be procedurally barred in State court, have on the Federal 25 habeas proceeding? 35 1 MR. FUTERFAS: Well, if I understand Your 2 Honor's question, certainly the time -- if the application 3 is filed and it contains barred claims -- that's -- under 4 the hypothetical it contains barred claims, the time is 5 tolling. I think the best way I can answer Your Honor's 6 question is to suggest that if we don't -- if it's not 7 tolling, and the defendant's petition in State court 8 contains barred claims, and there's not tolling 9 occurring -- 10 QUESTION: Right. 11 MR. FUTERFAS: -- then this Court's decisions, 12 for example in the Coleman case, where this Court has a 13 whole body of law governing cause in prejudice or 14 miscarriage of justice, that will essentially almost be 15 rendered a nullity, because yes, a defendant can have -- 16 can be procedurally barred, and procedurally defaulted, 17 and have waived everything, and not really present a good 18 procedural picture when it gets to the Federal court. 19 But at least under Coleman, and the other 20 decisions of this Court, at least when the defendant gets 21 there, if the defendant can prove cause in prejudice, if 22 the defendant can show a miscarriage of justice, then a 23 Federal habeas court can overlook those procedural 24 defaults and still reach the merits. 25 However, if, under the State -- if the State's 36 1 rule is adopted, the State determines that there's 2 procedural bar, it makes that determination a year 3 after -- you know, after 1 year has passed, now the whole 4 jurisprudence allowing delving into the merits on cause in 5 prejudice will not happen, because now the State prisoner 6 can't even get before a Federal court because the 7 statute's been tolled. 8 QUESTION: The significance of the procedural -- 9 of the bar decision in State court is that you have to 10 show cause in prejudice when you come into Federal court 11 before those claims could be reached, don't you? 12 MR. FUTERFAS: Well, you -- in -- I'm not -- I 13 apologize, I'm not sure I understand Your Honor's question 14 -- 15 QUESTION: Well, perhaps my question -- I think 16 Justice Ginsburg asked, you know, then what is the State 17 court determination that a claim is procedurally barred 18 reduced to if it doesn't have any effect of tolling. 19 Well, it still has an effect on the Federal court's 20 ability to review the merits of the claim, doesn't it? 21 MR. FUTERFAS: Yes. 22 QUESTION: Because unless the person can show 23 cause in prejudice the Federal court can't reach it. 24 MR. FUTERFAS: No, that's right. 25 QUESTION: Yes -- 37 1 MR. FUTERFAS: We understand that, but that 2 assumes, obviously, that the defendant can file, and that 3 the tolling is occurring, so the defendant can at least 4 get into the door in Federal court and try at least to 5 avail himself or herself of the Coleman doctrine. 6 There were -- there was a question of 7 petitioner, I believe by Justice Souter concerning whether 8 or not the statute would be mooted. I think that was the 9 essence of the question, and we suggest that it would be. 10 If -- I think we can safely assume that adoption of the 11 State's rule would encourage protective filings. 12 The result will be, we respectfully submit, as 13 if Congress said there's a 1-year limitations period which 14 is tolled where a Federal court finds a mixed petition, 15 because that essentially will be the result, the practical 16 result of adoption of the State's rule. 17 The -- there were concerns certainly raised in 18 petitioner's brief about vexatiousness, about a defendant 19 who's going to file and file and try to basically abuse 20 the State court system. First, we don't have that in this 21 case. 22 Mr. Bennett filed only two post conviction 23 applications. A second 440 is the one that's here before 24 this Court, and there's no question he wasn't trying to 25 delay. Right in that second application he cited 2254, he 38 1 wrote in the application that I'm doing this to exhaust. 2 When he didn't get a decision quickly, within a couple of 3 months, he actually wrote to the courts. He wrote to the 4 court and he said, when am I getting a decision, and he 5 continued writing, and -- 6 QUESTION: Did the State court here ever issue a 7 written order? 8 MR. FUTERFAS: No, it did not, so in terms of 9 delay, Mr. Bennett -- 10 QUESTION: To this date we have no written order 11 from the State court? 12 MR. FUTERFAS: That's correct, so the delay here 13 has been a 4-year delay, but the 4 years is in truth 14 attributable to the State. Once Mr. Bennett found out 15 that there was actually a decision, something he didn't 16 learn until a year after the decision took place, he 17 immediately, 3 days later he wrote to the court and he 18 said, please get me written order so that I can at least 19 seek leave to appeal. 20 And again, this is inconsistent -- consistent 21 with this Court's rule in O'Sullivan, which says, if you 22 want to exhaust you have to try, at least seek leave to 23 appeal on these claims that you're trying to exhaust, and 24 he did so. He wrote to the court. He wrote again and 25 again. All of 1997 was utilized by him writing four or 39 1 five letters to the court saying, when am I getting a 2 decision. 3 It was only until February of '98, after '97 had 4 gone, that he finally went in on 2254 and in his habeas 5 petition itself -- he wrote to Judge Gershon. In the form 6 it says, well, why haven't you appealed, and he said 7 because the State hasn't given me the order, so this case 8 certainly is not a question of delay. 9 This is a defendant who clearly did try to 10 exhaust, and there's no question here that he complied 11 with New York's filing requirements, filed his motion. 12 The State responded, he filed the reply, and the court 13 eventually ruled. There's no question that there wasn't a 14 properly filed document here within the meaning of New 15 York State's filing rules. 16 With respect, however, to the vexatiousness 17 concerns that the petitioners have addressed in their 18 brief, we think there are a number of answers to that. 19 One answer is that properly filed application only permits 20 tolling. It does not force the States to permit 21 repetitive filings. I don't think we should be 22 paternalistic, and I don't think we should suggest to 23 States -- there may be some States who say, you know, we 24 have no problem with successive applications. We don't 25 need to amend our laws because we have no problem with 40 1 them. 2 There may be other States, and Florida might be 3 one, that says, we have a significant problem. We're 4 going to amend our laws. We're going to put strict 5 statute of limitations in our laws, we're going to limit 6 the numbers of successive filings so -- 7 QUESTION: Of course, counsel, the States draw a 8 distinction between noncapital cases and capital cases. 9 It's always in the petitioner's interest to get prompt 10 disposition when he's not -- in a nondeath case. In a 11 death case, the stakes are reversed, and there is a motive 12 -- a potential for repetitive filing just to delay the 13 execution, so maybe you should address the capital cases, 14 too. 15 MR. FUTERFAS: Very well. We think there is a 16 difference, and we think we have a number of answers to 17 that. The first answer is that Congress was very 18 concerned with delays in capital cases. That wasn't a new 19 concern. In 1989, the Chief Justice appointed the Powell 20 Commission. The Powell Commission assembled, wrote a 21 report called the Powell Commission report. Those 22 findings were embodied in very large part in Chapter 154, 23 so delays in capital cases is something that Congress has 24 been concerned about. 25 They -- a commission was -- dealt with it, and 41 1 they recommendations of that commission were largely 2 incorporated in Chapter 154, so with respect to death 3 penalty cases, one thing is for sure, Congress said yes, 4 we're concerned about it and we have an answer, and our 5 answer is the opt-in provision, so if States comply with 6 the opt-in provision, they get the one collateral review, 7 and they have 180 days to go to Federal court, with some 8 exceptions, so that's clearly -- Congress has dealt with 9 that, number 1. 10 Number 2, States can always set an execution 11 date, and in that regard -- 12 QUESTION: How many States have opted in? 13 MR. FUTERFAS: At this point I'm not aware of 14 any that have adopted -- opted in at this point, but that 15 was Congress' -- that was Congress' considered judgment on 16 the issue and I respectfully submit that this statute, a 17 tolling statute, should not be judicially amended in order 18 to somehow satisfy States that for whatever reason have 19 not adopted in -- opted into the -- to Chapter 154. 20 In addition, this Court's decision in Gomez is 21 very important, because it sets an incentive for 22 defendants. What happened in Gomez, this Court may recall 23 is, the defendant did abuse the State court system and 24 started bringing last minute claims, new claims on the eve 25 of the execution, and finally came before this Court and 42 1 said, well, please grant me a stay, and this Court in 2 Gomez said no. You've abused the State court process, 3 you've let too much time gone by, you haven't properly 4 presented your claims, we're not going to give you a stay. 5 So the Gomez decision provides an enormous 6 incentive on a capital defendant to use the State court 7 process wisely and not abuse it. 8 Rule 9(a) -- Rule 9(a) of 2254 talks about 9 laches. There again, where a defendant abuses a State 10 court system, and the State can come in and say, you know, 11 defendant abused the State system. Now we are prejudiced 12 because so much time has gone by. Courts can avail 13 themselves of Rule 9(a) and preclude a defendant from 14 filing. 15 We respectfully submit that problematic 16 defendants, defendants who are abusing State court 17 systems, that's an ad hoc problem and it can be dealt with 18 on an ad hoc basis. This Court, even in some of those 19 cases where clearly petitioners maybe with mental problems 20 that filed 40 or 50 or 60 applications with this Court, 21 that's an ad hoc problem, and this Court took ad hoc 22 measures and said with respect to those defendants we will 23 not grant an in forma pauperis application, so there are 24 many measures -- 25 QUESTION: But it still is the case that if a 43 1 State has not opted in and a petitioner wishes to simply 2 continue the tolling period he can make repeated filings 3 in the State and if a district judge prefers not to hear 4 the habeas petition he can just simply wait. 5 MR. FUTERFAS: The -- I think there is a 6 theoretical possibility of a defendant filing repetitive 7 applications for whatever reason to toll the time that the 8 defendant has to go into Federal court. I think that 9 clearly is a theoretical possibility. In practical 10 effect, practical effect I think most defendants who are 11 noncapital defendants are going to have an incentive to 12 get their claims dealt with promptly, number 1. 13 Number 2, if that happens, the State can -- 14 State judge can simply send an order to the clerk's 15 office, do not accept this defendant's applications either 16 without leave of court, or simply don't accept them any 17 more. 18 In death penalty cases, a State can say, we've 19 had enough of this, we're setting an execution date, and 20 that will force the defendant to go straight to Federal 21 court, so I think there are a lot of ways to deal with the 22 vexatious litigant. 23 And also, keep in mind that even though tolling 24 occurs, that during the periods of time that there is no 25 tolling, that the clock is running, so if defendant files 44 1 an application and the application is denied, and then a 2 month later files another one, or 2 months later, that 3 time is going to toll, but I think these are ad hoc 4 problems, and that State courts are certainly 5 well-equipped. 6 If a State determines that there is a general, 7 more general delay problem the State, under our version of 8 the rule, has absolute freedom to adopt any kind of 9 procedure the State wishes to do, whether it's timing 10 requirements or successiveness limitations. In fact, 11 2244(b)(3) is a wonderful model that States could follow. 12 They could set up a system where, under successive 13 application, the State prisoner must obtain judicial 14 review first, or approval first to file, so there is a 15 whole panoply, really, of options available to a State to 16 deal with these problems. 17 One concern that we suggest occurs with respect, 18 however, to the interplay between 153 and 154 is the 19 following hypothetical. If a State opts in, in a death 20 penalty case, the State opts in, the defendant gets an 21 attorney, a competent attorney, the defendant gets one 22 run-through of the State collateral review process, and 23 there's no question that they can bring up any claim they 24 want, there's no suggestion in the State's briefs that 25 they're limited on what kinds of claims they can bring up 45 1 in that one review process, be it procedurally barred 2 claims or otherwise, when that petition is disposed of, 3 they have 180 days to get into Federal court. 4 Now watch what could happen with a death penalty 5 defendant if the State's rule is adopted, because under 6 153, the death penalty defendant now is convicted, files a 7 post application, post conviction application, does -- may 8 or may not have a lawyer, because the State has not opted 9 in, and it turns out all of the claims in the post 10 conviction application are procedurally barred and more 11 than 1 year has gone by. 12 The defendant, who is not represented because 13 the State has not opted in, now has lost his or her right 14 to even get into Federal court on a habeas, so that's a 15 possibility with the State's view of the rule. 16 If I may just have a moment. 17 The other cases that we respectfully suggest the 18 State's rule conflicts with are this Court's decision in 19 Rose v. Lundy. Rose said that an application, the mixed 20 application should be dismissed. The State suggests, 21 well, we can kind of modify Rose v. Lundy and say that the 22 application will be held in abeyance, but Rose v. Lundy 23 says no, it should be dismissed. Of course, if the 24 application is dismissed, and 1 year passes, that 25 defendant could be deprived of going into Federal court. 46 1 The O'Sullivan decision was just decided a year 2 ago says the defendants must bring all their claims -- 3 must seek leave to bring their claims to the highest court 4 in the State. There again, this is exactly, actually, 5 this case, Tony Bennett's case, is O'Sullivan, because 6 here Tony Bennett is, having lost in the trial court, now 7 is trying to seek leave to the Appellate Division, Second 8 Department, hasn't received the order for 4 years in which 9 to do so, so he's trying to comply with O'Sullivan. 10 But meanwhile, the clock is running, and under 11 the State's rule -- well, because the trial court 12 determined that his claims are procedurally barred, he's 13 already lost his right to get into Federal court, even 14 though at the same time O'Sullivan says you must be trying 15 to seek leave and appeal your petitions in order to 16 exhaust, so there's a conflict there as well. 17 Finally, this Court's decision in Lonchar v. 18 Thomas, this Court said that dismissal of the first habeas 19 corpus is a very serious matter, and any rule that would 20 deprive a first habeas corpus application should be clear 21 and fair. There's no limitation in 2244(d)(2) as to first 22 habeases or second habeases, or first post conviction 23 applications or second post conviction applications, so we 24 respectfully submit that the State's rule is inconsistent 25 as well with this Court's considered judgment and 47 1 pronouncements in Lonchar v. Thomas. 2 And if no Justices have any further questions, I 3 will submit. 4 QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Futerfas. 5 MR. FUTERFAS: Thank you. 6 QUESTION: Mr. Castellano, you have 1 minute 7 remaining. 8 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF JOHN M. CASTELLANO 9 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 10 MR. CASTELLANO: Your Honor, I would just like 11 to address the question, I believe it was Justice 12 Ginsburg's question actually about why adopt our rule. If 13 there are many different applications of the words, 14 properly filed, there are many different reasonable 15 interpretations of the words properly filed, why ours? 16 Why not just the petitioner's? 17 Ours because the purpose of a statute of -- the 18 purpose of a tolling provision is exhaustion, and our rule 19 follows the purpose of the tolling provision to a tee. It 20 follows it much more closely, certainly, than the 21 respondent's. Exhaustion does not require a State 22 prisoner to return to State court to exhaust a remedy 23 that's no longer available under State law because it's 24 procedurally barred. 25 The respondent also mentions the workload costs. 48 1 If the Court views the workload costs, it should view them 2 as a whole. The States are saving much in the way of 3 workload here, and the Federal courts, for example, are 4 pushing most of these defendants forward. These are 5 defendants who would in any event file in Federal court, 6 but much later, and the purpose of the statute of 7 limitations is being affected by drawing closer that 8 period of time between final -- between direct review and 9 Federal review. 10 And finally, as to time bars, the danger with 11 requiring the States to enact time bars -- 12 CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Thank you, Mr. 13 Castellano. The case is submitted. 14 (Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the case in the 15 above-entitled matter was submitted.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49