"[I]f a California court dismisses a habeas petition without comment, or even if it reviews a petition on the merits without discussing timeliness, a federal court 'must itself examine the delay in each case and determine what the state courts would have held in respect to timeliness.'" Robinson v. Lewis, 795 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Chavis, 546 U.S. at 197-98). California courts apply a general "reasonableness" standard to determine whether a state habeas petition is timely.
"[I]f a California court dismisses a habeas petition without comment, or even if it reviews a petition on the merits without discussing timeliness, a federal court 'must itself examine the delay in each case and determine what the state courts would have held in respect to timeliness.'" Robinson v. Lewis, 795 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Chavis, 546 U.S. at 197-98). California courts apply a general "reasonableness" standard to determine whether a state habeas petition is timely.
"[I]f a California court dismisses a habeas petition without comment, or even if it reviews a petition on the merits without discussing timeliness, a federal court 'must itself examine the delay in each case and determine what the state courts would have held in respect to timeliness.'" Robinson v. Lewis, 795 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 197-98 (2006)).
See, e.g. , Bohmker v. Oregon , 903 F.3d 1029, 1040 n.6 (9th Cir. 2018). Valdez also contends that we should hold this case in abeyance pending the California Supreme Court’s response to the question we certified in Robinson v. Lewis , 795 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2015). We find it unnecessary to do so.
Curiel v. Miller, 830 F.3d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (citing Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189, 197 (2006)). "[I]f a California court dismisses a habeas petition without comment, or even if it reviews a petition on the merits without discussing timeliness, a federal court 'must itself examine the delay in each case and determine what the state courts would have held in respect to timeliness.'" Robinson v. Lewis, 795 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Chavis, 546 U.S. at 197-98). California courts apply a general "reasonableness" standard to determine whether a state habeas petition is timely.
Because "California courts had not provided authoritative guidance on this issue," the Supreme Court in Chavis "made its own conjecture . . . 'that California's "reasonable time" standard would not lead to filing delays substantially longer than' between 30 and 60 days." Robinson v. Lewis, 795 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Chavis, 546 U.S. at 199). However, if a petitioner demonstrates good cause, California courts allow a longer delay.
"[I]f a California court dismisses a habeas petition without comment . . . a federal court 'must itself examine the delay in each case and determine what the state courts would have held in respect to timeliness.'" Robinson v. Lewis, 795 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Chavis, 546 U.S. at 197-98). In the instant case, the California Supreme Court summarily denied Petitioner's state habeas petition without comment.
Accordingly, it asked us to explain how California law treats what we will call "gap delay." (See Robinson v. Lewis (9th Cir. 2015) 795 F.3d 926 ( Robinson ).) We accepted the request, although we restated the question presented to more accurately reflect California law and practice.
In this case, we were presented with the question whether "a habeas petition [is] untimely filed after an unexplained 66-day delay between the time a California trial court denies the petition and the time [a new] petition is filed in the California Court of Appeal." Robinson v. Lewis, 795 F.3d 926, 928 (9th Cir. 2015). Following the Supreme Court's guidance, Chavis, 546 U.S. at 199, we certified the question to the California Supreme Court, Robinson, 795 F.3d at 928.
"[I]f a California court dismisses a habeas petition without comment, or even if it reviews a petition on the merits without discussing timeliness, a federal court 'must itself examine the delay in each case and determine what the state courts would have held in respect to timeliness.'" Robinson v. Lewis, 795 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Chavis, 546 U.S. at 197-98).