Artuz v. Bennett
| Artuz v. Bennett | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 10, 2000 Decided November 7, 2000 | |
| Full case name | Christopher Artuz, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility v. Tony Bruce Bennett |
| Citations | 531 U.S. 4 (more) 531 U.S. 4 (2000) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On Writ of Certiorari to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Subsequent | Remanded to the District Court |
| Holding | |
| An application for state postconviction relief containing procedurally barred claims is filed within the meaning of the AEDPA. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| AEDPA (1996) | |
Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2000. The case concerned whether a habeas corpus petition tolled for time under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 when certain state claims are still pending. The Court held that it did not.
Opinion of the Court
Justice Scalia delivered the unanimous decision for the Court, which held that an application for postconviction relief containing procedurally barred claims is properly filed within the meaning of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Only the specific claims and not the actual filing of the claims could be defaulted under state law, he argued. "An application is 'filed', as that term is commonly understood," Scalia wrote, "when it is delivered to, and accepted by, the appropriate state officer for placement into the official record". In the present case, the Court had not issued a written dismissal, just an oral decision from the bench. That would not count toward the tolling of the habeas claim.