## Facts

- John Pace pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania state court to second-degree murder and possession of an instrument of crime and received a life sentence.
- Pace sought state postconviction relief under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Hearing Act; review concluded when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied discretionary review.
- After Pennsylvania enacted the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) with a one-year filing deadline and limited exceptions, Pace filed a PCRA petition that did not address timeliness.
- Pennsylvania appellate courts ultimately held Pace’s PCRA petition untimely under state law, and discretionary review was denied.
- Pace later filed a federal habeas petition governed by AEDPA’s one-year limitations period, which can be tolled while a “properly filed” state collateral application is pending.
- Pace argued his PCRA petition tolled AEDPA’s clock and, alternatively, that equitable tolling should apply because state timeliness rules and federal exhaustion created a “trap.”

## Issues

1. Whether a state postconviction petition rejected as untimely is a “properly filed” application that tolls AEDPA’s one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
2. Whether equitable tolling applied based on alleged confusion about state timeliness and exhaustion requirements.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Third Circuit.
- A state postconviction petition dismissed as untimely is not “properly filed” under § 2244(d)(2) and therefore does not statutorily toll AEDPA’s limitations period.
- Pace was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to establish diligent pursuit of his rights and an extraordinary circumstance preventing timely filing.
- Because no statutory or equitable tolling applied, Pace’s federal habeas petition was time-barred.

## Legal Principles

- For AEDPA statutory tolling, a state collateral application is “properly filed” only if it satisfies state-law filing conditions, including timeliness; a late filing that does not fall within a state timeliness exception is not “properly filed.”
- Time limits are filing conditions that go to the initiation of a petition and the court’s ability to consider it, not merely rules affecting entitlement to relief.
- Equitable tolling of AEDPA’s limitations period requires the petitioner to prove (1) diligent pursuit of rights and (2) an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing.
- Confusion, miscalculation, or misunderstanding of timing rules, without more, does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.
- When state timeliness is uncertain, a petitioner may file a protective federal habeas petition and seek a stay while exhausting state remedies.

## Conclusion

The Court held that an untimely state postconviction petition does not toll AEDPA’s one-year limitations period because it is not “properly filed,” and it denied equitable tolling absent proof of diligence and an extraordinary impediment; Pace’s federal habeas petition was therefore barred as untimely.


Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005)