Pace: Artuz distinguished

In Pace v. DiGuglielmo, No. 03-9627 (April 27, 2005), the Supreme Court held that a state post-conviction motion is not "properly filed," within the meaning of the tolling provision of the AEDPA’s statute of limitations, when that motion was denied by the state courts for being untimely under state law. The Court distinguished Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000), which had found that a state petition was "properly filed." The Court pointed out that Artuz involved a state dismissal for procedural default, not, with Pace, a state dismissal for untimeliness. An petition dismissed as untimely cannot be considered "properly filed," the Court concluded.