In 1995, Congress enacted a one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and federal prisoners under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.  State post-conviction counsel must be aware of the applicable deadlines in order to preserve the possibility for federal review of constitutional error.  The statute of limitations defense is a defense possessed by the government, which must assert it or the court may not dismiss on this basis.[90] 

[90] Nardi v. Stewart, 354 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. January 20, 2004) (government waived statute of limitations defense, since the answer to the habeas petition failed to assert it, as required by Fed. Rule Crim. P. 8(c), so district court lacked authority to dismiss the petition as time-barred).

POST CON RELIEF " VEHICLES " FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS AND FEDERAL CORAM NOBIS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL " FAILURE TO ADVISE ON IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES " APPLICABILITY OF CHAIDEZ TO REVIEW OF FEDERAL CONVICTIONS
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20, 2013) (court failed to reach arguments by Chaidez that Teague's bar on retroactivity does not apply when a petitioner challenges a federal conviction, or at least does not do so when she makes a claim of ineffective assistance, because she did not adequately raise them in the lower courts: [M]indful that we are a court of review, not of first view, the court declined to rule on Chaidez's new arguments); quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005).

POST CON RELIEF " VEHICLES " FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS AND FEDERAL CORAM NOBIS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL " FAILURE TO ADVISE ON IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES " APPLICABILITY OF CHAIDEZ TO REVIEW OF FEDERAL CONVICTIONS
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20, 2013) (court failed to reach arguments by Chaidez that Teague's bar on retroactivity does not apply when a petitioner challenges a federal conviction, or at least does not do so when she makes a claim of ineffective assistance, because she did not adequately raise them in the lower courts: [M]indful that we are a court of review, not of first view, the court declined to rule on Chaidez's new arguments); quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005).

POST CON RELIEF " VEHICLES " FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS AND FEDERAL CORAM NOBIS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL " FAILURE TO ADVISE ON IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES " APPLICABILITY OF CHAIDEZ TO REVIEW OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIMS BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT BE RAISED ON DIRECT APPEAL
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1103 (Feb. 20, 2013) (court failed to reach argument that new rules may be reached in post-conviction proceedings raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims because such claims cannot be brought on direct appeal because Chaidez did not raise this argument in the courts below).

POST CON RELIEF " VEHICLES " FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS AND FEDERAL CORAM NOBIS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL " FAILURE TO ADVISE ON IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES " APPLICABILITY OF CHAIDEZ TO REVIEW OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIMS BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT BE RAISED ON DIRECT APPEAL
Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013) (court failed to reach argument that new rules may be reached in post-conviction proceedings raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims because such claims cannot be brought on direct appeal because Chaidez did not raise this argument in the courts below).

POST CON RELIEF " VEHICLES " FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS AND FEDERAL CORAM NOBIS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL " FAILURE TO ADVISE ON IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES " APPLICABILITY OF CHAIDEZ TO REVIEW OF FEDERAL CONVICTIONS
Chaidez v. United States, ___ U.S.___, ___, ___ S.Ct.___, 2013 WL 610201 (Feb. 20, 2013) (court failed to reach arguments by Chaidez that Teague's bar on retroactivity does not apply when a petitioner challenges a federal conviction, or at least does not do so when she makes a claim of ineffective assistance, because she did not adequately raise them in the lower courts: [M]indful that we are a court of review, not of first view, the court declined to rule on Chaidez's new arguments); quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005).

POST CON RELIEF " VEHICLES " FEDERAL " HABEAS CORPUS " STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS " MANDATORY BUT NONJURISDICTIONAL
Gonzalez v. Thaler, ___ U.S. ___, 2012 WL 43513 (Jan.10, 2012) (petition for habeas relief was time-barred under AEDPA, because the 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(3) one-year statute of limitations is a mandatory but nonjurisdictional rule and, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)(A), judgment becomes final on the date that the time for seeking such review expires).

POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " HABEAS " STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Wall v. Kholi, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1278 (Mar. 7, 2011) (petitioner was within the "one-year" deadline even though he filed his federal habeas petition more than 11 years after his conviction became final).

POST CON RELIEF - VEHICLES - HABEAS - FEDERAL HABEAS - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Holland v. Florida, 559 U.S. ___ (Jun. 14, 2010) ("because the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. 2254, is not jurisdictional, it is subject to a rebuttable presumption in favor of equitable tolling reinforced here by the fact that equitable principles have traditionally governed substantive habeas law, and the fact that Congress enacted AEDPA after Irwin and therefore was likely aware that courts, when interpreting AEDPAs timing provisions, would apply the presumption").

POST CON RELIEF - VEHICLES - HABEAS - FEDERAL HABEAS - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Holland v. Florida, 559 U.S. ___ (Jun. 14, 2010) (a federal habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations if he shows (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance - to be determined under the courts equity powers on a case-by-case basis, stood in his or her way and prevented timely filing of the petition, demonstrating flexibility and avoiding mechanical rules, in order to relieve hardships arising from a hard and fast adherence to more absolute legal rules).

POST CON RELIEF - VEHICLES - HABEAS - FEDERAL HABEAS - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Holland v. Florida, 559 U.S. ___ (Jun. 14, 2010) (at least sometimes, an attorneys unprofessional conduct can be so egregious as to create an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling of the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas corpus petition).

POST CON RELIEF - FEDERAL - HABEAS CORPUS - AEDPA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - CONCLUSION OF OUT OF TIME DIRECT APPEAL MARKS BEGINNING OF FINALITY FOR PURPOSES OF THE AEDPA STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Jimenez v. Quarterman, ___ U.S. ___ 129 S.Ct. 681 (2008) (where a defendant is granted permission to file an out-of-time direct appeal during state collateral review, but before the defendant has first sought federal habeas relief, the judgment is not yet "final" for purposes of 28 U. S. C. 2244(d)(1)(A) (outlining the start date of the one-year limitations period for seeking review under the AEDPA); "the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review" must reflect the conclusion of the out-of-time direct appeal, or the expiration of the time for seeking review of that appeal).

Ninth Circuit

POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " VEHICLES " HABEAS CORPUS -- STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS " UNTIMELY FILING EXCUSED BY DELUSIONS
Forbess v. Franke, 749 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. Apr. 18, 2014) (untimely habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 allowed where petitioner suffered from delusions so severe that he was unable to understand the need to timely file his petition).

POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " HABEAS " STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Stancle v. Clay, 692 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2012) (habeas petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling for the period between the denial of his first superior court habeas petition and the filing of his second in the same court because he did not limit his second petition to an elaboration of the facts or simply attempt to correct deficiencies in the original petition; alleged mental incompetence is insufficient to warrant equitable tolling because petitioner did not meet his burden of showing that he could have filed a timely petition with the assistance he was receiving).

POST CON RELIEF " VEHICLES " HABEAS " FEDERAL " STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS " ACTUAL INNOCENCE EXCEPTION
Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2011) (while believable proof of actual innocence excuses noncompliance with the statute of limitations governing 28 U.S.C. 2241 petitions, a greater showing of sufficient evidence of actual innocence is required to allow review of his constitutional claims on the merits).

POST CONVICTION RELIEF - FEDERAL HABEAS - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS - ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO FAIL TO STAY PETITION TO ALLOW EXHAUSTION
Olvera v. Giurbino, 371 F.3d 569 (9th Cir. June 08, 2004) (abuse of discretion where district court failed to allow defendant to stay habeas petition so he could properly exhaust claims without having his petition bared by the statute of limitations).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0256134p.pdf

Other

POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " HABEAS " REVIEW OF STATE CONVICTION " STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS " PRACTICE ADVISORY
The statute governing federal habeas review of state convictions does include a one-year deadline. Under 28 U.S.C. 2244, "(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of --... (C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. It is unlikely that Padilla creates a new rule for this purpose because the Court in Padilla was applying Strickland v. Washington, a 1984 rule, to new facts. See also Graham v. Collins. Nevertheless, for those in custody whose only chance at federal habeas review is to argue that Padilla is a retroactive new rule under Teague, the upcoming one-year anniversary would have legal significance. A Mar. 7, 2011 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court illustrates the complexity of the interplay of the various provisions 28 USC 2244 (d). In Wall v. Kholi, 131 S.Ct. 1278 (2011), the Court held that a petitioner was within the "one-year" deadline even though he filed his federal habeas petition more than 11 years after his conviction became final. Thanks to Dan Kesselbrenner.