Haynes v. Peters
In brief
The Supreme Court refused to hear Haynes's case, leaving the Ninth Circuit's ruling in place without deciding whether the deadline barred his petition or could be extended.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 26, 2020
- What it’s about
- The Court denied Haynes’s petition for review, leaving in place the lower court’s ruling that his federal habeas petition was filed too late. Peters therefore prevailed, and Haynes did not receive equitable tolling of the filing deadline.
- Who it affects
- For Haynes, the Ninth Circuit's ruling remained in place, but the Supreme Court did not decide whether his filing was late or whether the deadline could be extended.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The case came from the Ninth Circuit and concerned a federal one-year deadline for a prisoner's challenge to being locked up.
Question presented
1. Whether the district court erred in dismissing Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)? 2. Whether Petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year statute of limitations for filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus?
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
The Court has finished this docket action. The Ninth Circuit's ruling remains in place for Haynes; this order did not decide the filing-deadline or equitable-tolling questions.
Documents
Opinions
Key filings
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.