October Term 2000 · Docket 99-1238
Can repetitive state motions extend the federal habeas deadline?
The dispute centers on whether filing repetitive, procedurally barred state motions extends the one-year federal habeas deadline.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Castellano argued that repetitive state motions extend the federal habeas deadline.
Mr. Schweitzer argued that repetitive state motions undermine the statutory limitation period.
Chief Justice Rehnquist closed the argument by stating the case was submitted.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-25
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of the federal habeas statute's tolling provision. The core conflict involves the definition of a properly filed application. One side argues the term excludes repetitive motions. The other side argues the term includes them to harmonize exhaustion rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 10, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to allow repetitive state motions to extend the federal habeas deadline.
the opposing side wants the Court to reject repetitive state motions as valid tolling events.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues that repetitive state motions count as properly filed applications under the statute.
the opposing side argues that repetitive state motions are procedurally barred and cannot toll the deadline.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted after the arguments concluded.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-25
Why it matters
This issue determines the finality of state criminal convictions. It defines the boundary between state procedural rules and federal habeas rights. It impacts the timing of federal court reviews of state prison sentences.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 23-25
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 49-21 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 49-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.