Bonner v. Carey, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2006) (California Superior Court denied state petition as untimely when it said that petitioner could have raised the claims in an earlier petition and that there "[wa]s no reason stated for any delay in this regard"; petition was thus never "properly filed" for purposes of the tolling provision of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996).

Evans v. Chavis, ___ U.S. ___ (Jan. 10, 2006) (though California has no statutory period for filing a challenge to a denial of a habeas petition, three-year delay between adverse ruling and request for appellate review was not a "reasonable time" within the meaning of In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 828, n.7; state high court's denial "on the merits" did not mean that it considered the petition timely; Supreme Court suggests that the California court might define what it means by "reasonable time," and strongly suggests that 30 to 60 days are the magic numbers).

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, ___ U.S. ___, 2005 WL 957194 (April 27, 2005) (federal habeas review of state conviction precluded since state petition rejected by state court as untimely is not properly filed under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2), and therefore does not toll the 1-year AEDPA statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas corpus petition).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/03-9627.html

Gaston v. Palmer, 387 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2004) (petitioner entitled to tolling during time six separate state habeas petitions were pending, including intervals between the dismissal of one application and the filing of next one, because there is no strict time limit on the filing of habeas petitions in the different courts; intervals as long as 307 and 282 days were entitled to interval tolling).

Isley v. Arizona Dept. of Corr., __ F.3d __ (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2004) (petition for habeas corpus granted where state petition for post-conviction relief was pending within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 2244(d)(2) and entitled defendant to toll one year statute of limitation period for filing federal post-conviction relief).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0315858p.pdf

Chavis v. Lemarke, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2004) (district court dismissal of federal habeas corpus petition as untimely reversed since statute of limitations was tolled due to filing of state habeas petitions).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0117072p.pdf

Chavis v. LeMarque, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2004) (AEDPA one-year statute of limitations for 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas proceedings tolled while second round of state post-conviction petitions were pending, even though they were denied on procedural grounds, since state court's ultimate decision on a particular petition does not affect whether that petition is "pending" while court considers it). See also Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S.

Rasberry v. Garcia, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. May 25, 2006) (equitable tolling of federal habeas statute of limitations is not justified by lack of sophistication of pro se petitioner, standing alone, as an extraordinary circumstance).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0315854p.pdf

Espinoza-Matthews v. People of the State of California, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2005) (petitioner in administrative segregation for his own protection who was denied access to his legal materials was entitled to equitable tolling [extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner's control making it impossible to file a petition on time] of the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations to file federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254).

Espinoza-Matthews v. People of California, ___ F.3d ___, 2005 WL 3535129 (9th Cir. Dec. 28, 2005) (reversing dismissal of defendants petition for a writ of habeas corpus from his conviction as untimely, since defendant is entitled to equitable tolling where he was denied access to his legal materials for a period of time).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0456805p.pdf