Citation network
Pace Vs. Diguglielmo
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 27, 2005
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2004 Pace V. DiguglielmoSearch
-
a) Petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling. When this Court held in Artuz v. BennettSearch
-
s statute of limitations and is supported by Carey v. SaffoldSearch
-
diligently. Thus, assuming equitable tolling applies here, he is not entitled to equitable tolling. See, e.g., Irwin v. DepartmentSearch
-
JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Pace v. DiGuglielmoSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Pace V. DiguglielmoSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-9627 John a. Pace, Petitioner V. DavidSearch
-
b), and citing as support Commonwealth v. AlcornSearch
-
as we described those distinct concepts in Artuz v. BennettSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
circumstances justifying equitable tolling. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. Pace v. VaughnSearch
-
We now affirm. In Artuz v. BennettSearch
-
facto extension mechanism, quite contrary to the purpose of AEDPA, and open the door to abusive delay. Carey v. SaffoldSearch
-
the federal court to stay and abey the federal habeas proceedings until state remedies are exhausted. See Rhines v. WeberSearch
-
see Artuz v. BennettSearch
-
pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way. See, e.g. , Irwin v. DepartmentSearch
-
s operation. See Irwin v. DepartmentSearch
-
habeas petition was filed well after the April 1997 deadline. Footnote 3 Compare, e.g. , Dictado v. DucharmeSearch
-
CA9 2001), with Merritt v. BlaineSearch
-
CA3 2003). Footnote 4 With regard to jurisdiction, see, e.g. , Commonwealth v. JudgeSearch
-
Commonwealth v. FahySearch
-
s statute of limitations. Cf. Pliler v. FordSearch
-
s federal habeas petition was due in April 1997, see n. 2, supra . Pace v. DiGuglielmoSearch
-
Stevens, J., Dissenting Pace V. DiguglielmoSearch
-
are not defined in AEDPA. We did, however, interpret those words in Artuz v. BennettSearch
-
habeas petition expired. Under AEDPA, Pace had until April 24, 1997, to file a federal habeas petition. See Carey v. SaffoldSearch
-
in the first place. III In Artuz v. BennettSearch
-
in what is his second state habeas petition. The first claim asserts a violation of due process rights under Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
rules that would give the same statutory provision different meanings in different contexts, see, e.g., Clark v. MartinezSearch
-
Duncan v. WalkerSearch
-
Hohn v. UnitedSearch
-
identifying and preventing the kind of dilatory pleadings that concern the Court today. See, e.g., McCleskey v. ZantSearch
-
accompanied by a request to stay federal proceedings pending the exhaustion of their state remedies. Cf. Rhines v. WeberSearch
-
on different meanings in different contexts. That is the same interpretive exercise we unequivocally rejected in Clark v. MartinezSearch
-
Irwin v. DepartmentSearch
-
John a. Pace, Petitioner V. DavidSearch
-
Commonwealth v. AlcornSearch
-
Pace v. VaughnSearch
-
In Artuz v. BennettSearch
-
See Rhines v. WeberSearch
-
See Irwin v. DepartmentSearch
-
Dictado v. DucharmeSearch
-
Merritt v. BlaineSearch
-
Commonwealth v. JudgeSearch
-
Cf. Pliler v. FordSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial