DUNCAN, SUPERINTENDENT, GREAT MEADOW CORRECTIONAL FACILITY v. WALKER

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
167 OCTOBER TERM, 2000
Syllabus
DUNCAN, SUPERINTENDENT, GREAT MEADOW
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY v. WALKER
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the second circuit
No. 00–121. Argued March 26, 2001—Decided June 18, 2001
The time during which an “application for State post-conviction or other
collateral review” is pending tolls the limitation period for filing federal
habeas petitions. 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(2). Before the April 24, 1996,
effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996 (AEDPA), respondent’s state robbery conviction became final.
He filed, inter alia, a federal habeas petition under § 2254. The Dis-
trict Court dismissed the petition without prejudice because it was
not apparent that respondent had exhausted available state remedies.
On May 20, 1997, without having returned to state court, respondent
filed another federal habeas petition. The District Court dismissed
that petition because respondent had not filed within a reasonable
time from AEDPA’s effective date. In reversing, the Second Circuit
found that respondent’s first federal habeas petition was an application
for “other collateral review” that tolled the limitation period under
§ 2244(d)(2) and made his current petition timely.
Held: A federal habeas petition is not an “application for State post-
conviction or other collateral review” within the meaning of § 2244(d)(2).
As a result, § 2244(d)(2) did not toll the limitation period during the
pendency of respondent’s first federal habeas petition. The Court be-
gins with the language of the statute. See, e. g., Williams v. Taylor,
529 U. S. 420, 431. Petitioner’s contention that “State” applies to the
entire phrase “post-conviction or other collateral review” is correct.
To begin with, Congress placed “State” before that phrase without spe-
cifically naming any kind of “Federal” review. The fact that other
AEDPA provisions denominate expressly both “State” and “Federal”
proceedings, see, e. g., § 2254(i), supplies strong evidence that Congress
would have mentioned “Federal” review expressly had Congress in-
tended to include federal review. See Bates v. United States, 522 U. S.
23, 29–30. Respondent’s contrary construction would render the word
“State” insignificant, if not wholly superfluous. This Court’s duty to
give effect, where possible, to every word of a statute, United States
v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538–539, makes the Court reluctant to
treat statutory terms as surplusage. This is especially so when the

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
168 DUNCAN v. WALKER
Syllabus
term occupies so pivotal a place in the statutory scheme as the word
“State” in the federal habeas statute. But under respondent’s ren-
dition, “State” has no operative effect on the scope of § 2244(d)(2). The
clause would have precisely the same content were it to read “post-
conviction or other collateral review.” Contrary to the Second Cir-
cuit’s characterization, petitioner’s interpretation does not yield the
linguistic oddity “State other collateral review,” but more naturally
yields the understanding “other State collateral review.” Further,
that court’s reasoning that the phrase “other collateral review” would
be rendered meaningless if it did not refer to federal habeas peti-
tions depends on the incorrect premise that the only state “collateral”
review is “post-conviction” review. “[O]ther collateral review” could
include, e. g., a state court civil commitment or civil contempt order.
Congress also may have used “post-conviction or other collateral” in
recognition of the diverse terminology that different States employ
to represent the different forms of collateral review that are avail-
able after a conviction. Examination of the AEDPA provision estab-
lishing the limitation period for filing § 2254 petitions in state capital
cases, § 2263(b)(2), shows that Congress used the disjunctive clause
“post-conviction review or other collateral relief ” where the latter term
could not possibly include anything federal within its ambit. Petition-
er’s construction is also far more consistent than respondent’s with
AEDPA’s purpose to further the principles of comity, finality, and fed-
eralism. Respondent contends that petitioner’s interpretation creates
the potential for unfairness to litigants who file timely federal petitions
that are dismissed without prejudice after the limitation period has
expired. But the Court’s sole task here is one of statutory construction.
And in light of the facts that respondent never cured the defects that
led to the dismissal of his first federal petition during the remaining
nine months of the limitation period, and that his 1996 and 1997 peti-
tions contained different claims, this Court has no occasion to address
alternative scenarios. Pp. 172–182.
208 F. 3d 357, reversed and remanded.
O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehn-
quist, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., joined.
Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 182. Stevens, J., filed an
opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Sou-
ter, J., joined, post, p. 182. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in
which Ginsburg, J., joined, post, p. 185.
Preeta D. Bansal, Solicitor General of New York, argued
the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Eliot

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
169 Cite as: 533 U. S. 167 (2001)
Opinion of the Court
Spitzer, Attorney General, Daniel Smirlock, Deputy Solici-
tor General, and David Axinn, Robert H. Easton, Robin
Forshaw, and Martin A. Hotvet, Assistant Solicitors General.
Deborah Wolikow Loewenberg, by appointment of the
Court, 531 U. S. 1066, argued the cause for respondent.
With her on the brief were John H. Blume and Keir M.
Weyble.*
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. V) provides:
“The time during which a properly filed application for State
post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to
the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be
counted toward any period of limitation under this sub-
section.” This case presents the question whether a federal
habeas corpus petition is an “application for State post-
conviction or other collateral review” within the meaning
of this provision.
I
In 1992, several judgments of conviction for robbery
were entered against respondent Sherman Walker in the
*A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed for the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts et al. by Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of
Massachusetts, and Catherine E. Sullivan and William J. Meade, Assist-
ant Attorneys General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective
States as follows: Bill Pryor of Alabama, M. Jane Brady of Delaware,
Earl Anzai of Hawaii, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of
Maryland, Michael C. Moore of Mississippi, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of
Missouri, Mike McGrath of Montana, Don Stenberg of Nebraska, Frankie
Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Betty D. Montgomery of Ohio, D. Michael Fisher
of Pennsylvania, Mark Barnett of South Dakota, Paul G. Summers of Ten-
nessee, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, Mark L. Earley of Virginia, Christine
O. Gregoire of Washington, and Darrel V. McGraw, Jr., of West Virginia.
Leon Friedman and Joshua L. Dratel filed a brief for the National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae urging
affirmance.
Kent S. Scheidegger filed a brief for the Criminal Justice Legal Founda-
tion as amicus curiae.

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
170 DUNCAN v. WALKER
Opinion of the Court
New York state courts. The last of these convictions came
in June 1992, when respondent pleaded guilty to robbery
in the first degree in the New York Supreme Court, Queens
County. Respondent was sentenced to 7 to 14 years in
prison on this conviction.
Respondent unsuccessfully pursued a number of state
remedies in connection with his convictions. It is unneces-
sary to describe all of these proceedings herein. Respond-
ent’s last conviction was affirmed on June 12, 1995. Re-
spondent was later denied leave to appeal to the New York
Court of Appeals. Respondent also sought a writ of error
coram nobis, which the Appellate Division denied on March
18, 1996. Respondent’s last conviction became final in April
1996, prior to the April 24, 1996, effective date of the Anti-
terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA),
110 Stat. 1214.
In a single document dated April 10, 1996, respondent filed
a complaint under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, and a
petition for habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York. On July 9, 1996, the District Court dismissed
the complaint and petition without prejudice. With respect
to the habeas petition, the District Court, citing § 2254(b),
concluded that respondent had not adequately set forth his
claim because it was not apparent that respondent had ex-
hausted available state remedies. The District Court noted
that, for example, respondent had failed to specify the claims
litigated in the state appellate proceedings relating to his
robbery convictions.
On May 20, 1997, more than one year after AEDPA’s ef-
fective date, respondent filed another federal habeas peti-
tion in the same District Court. It is undisputed that re-
spondent had not returned to state court since the dismissal
of his first federal habeas filing. On May 6, 1998, the Dis-
trict Court dismissed the petition as time barred because

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
171 Cite as: 533 U. S. 167 (2001)
Opinion of the Court
respondent had not filed the petition within a “reasonable
time” from AEDPA’s effective date.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Cir-
cuit reversed the District Court’s judgment, reinstated the
habeas petition, and remanded the case for further pro-
ceedings. Walker v. Artuz, 208 F. 3d 357 (2000). The Court
of Appeals noted at the outset that, because respondent’s
conviction had become final prior to AEDPA’s effective date,
he had until April 24, 1997, to file his federal habeas petition.
The court also observed that the exclusion from the limita-
tion period of the time during which respondent’s first fed-
eral habeas petition was pending in the District Court would
render the instant habeas petition timely.
The Court of Appeals held that respondent’s first fed-
eral habeas petition had tolled the limitation period because
it was an application for “other collateral review” within
the meaning of § 2244(d)(2). The court characterized the
disjunctive “or” between “post-conviction” and “other col-
lateral” as creating a “distinct break” between two kinds
of review. Id., at 359. The court also stated that applica-
tion of the word “State” to both “post-conviction” and “other
collateral” would create a “linguistic oddity” in the form of
the construction “State other collateral review.” Id., at 360.
The court further reasoned that the phrase “other collateral
review” would be meaningless if it did not refer to federal
habeas petitions. The court therefore concluded that the
word “State” modified only “post-conviction.”
The Court of Appeals also found no conflict between its
interpretation of the statute and the purpose of AEDPA.
The court found instead that its construction would pro-
mote the goal of encouraging petitioners to file their federal
habeas applications as soon as possible.
We granted certiorari, 531 U. S. 991 (2000), to resolve a
conflict between the Second Circuit’s decision and the deci-
sions of three other Courts of Appeals. See Jiminez v. Rice,
222 F. 3d 1210 (CA9 2000); Grooms v. Johnson, 208 F. 3d 488

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
172 DUNCAN v. WALKER
Opinion of the Court
(CA5 1999) (per curiam); Jones v. Morton, 195 F. 3d 153
(CA3 1999). One other Court of Appeals has since adopted
the Second Circuit’s view. Petrick v. Martin, 236 F. 3d 624
(CA10 2001). We now reverse.
II
Our task is to construe what Congress has enacted. We
begin, as always, with the language of the statute. See, e. g.,
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 420, 431 (2000); Public Em-
ployees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U. S. 158,
175 (1989); Watt v. Energy Action Ed. Foundation, 454 U. S.
151, 162 (1981). Respondent reads § 2244(d)(2) to apply the
word “State” only to the term “post-conviction” and not
to the phrase “other collateral.” Under this view, a prop-
erly filed federal habeas petition tolls the limitation period.
Petitioner contends that the word “State” applies to the
entire phrase “post-conviction or other collateral review.”
Under this view, a properly filed federal habeas petition does
not toll the limitation period.
We believe that petitioner’s interpretation of § 2244(d)(2)
is correct for several reasons. To begin with, Congress
placed the word “State” before “post-conviction or other
collateral review” without specifically naming any kind of
“Federal” review. The essence of respondent’s position is
that Congress used the phrase “other collateral review”
to incorporate federal habeas petitions into the class of ap-
plications for review that toll the limitation period. But a
comparison of the text of § 2244(d)(2) with the language of
other AEDPA provisions supplies strong evidence that,
had Congress intended to include federal habeas petitions
within the scope of § 2244(d)(2), Congress would have men-
tioned “Federal” review expressly. In several other por-
tions of AEDPA, Congress specifically used both the words
“State” and “Federal” to denote state and federal proceed-
ings. For example, 28 U. S. C. § 2254(i) (1994 ed., Supp. V)
provides: “The ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
173 Cite as: 533 U. S. 167 (2001)
Opinion of the Court
during Federal or State collateral post-conviction proceed-
ings shall not be a ground for relief in a proceeding arising
under section 2254.” Likewise, the first sentence of 28
U. S. C. § 2261(e) (1994 ed., Supp. V) provides: “The ineffec-
tiveness or incompetence of counsel during State or Federal
post-conviction proceedings in a capital case shall not be a
ground for relief in a proceeding arising under section 2254.”
The second sentence of § 2261(e) states: “This limitation shall
not preclude the appointment of different counsel, on the
court’s own motion or at the request of the prisoner, at any
phase of State or Federal post-conviction proceedings on
the basis of the ineffectiveness or incompetence of counsel
in such proceedings.” Finally, 28 U. S. C. § 2264(a)(3) (1994
ed., Supp. V) excuses a state capital prisoner’s failure to raise
a claim properly in state court where the failure is “based
on a factual predicate that could not have been discovered
through the exercise of due diligence in time to present the
claim for State or Federal post-conviction review.”
Section 2244(d)(2), by contrast, employs the word “State,”
but not the word “Federal,” as a modifier for “review.” It
is well settled that “ ‘[w]here Congress includes particular
language in one section of a statute but omits it in another
section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Con-
gress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate in-
clusion or exclusion.’ ” Bates v. United States, 522 U. S. 23,
29–30 (1997) (quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U. S.
16, 23 (1983)). We find no likely explanation for Congress’
omission of the word “Federal” in § 2244(d)(2) other than
that Congress did not intend properly filed applications for
federal review to toll the limitation period. It would be
anomalous, to say the least, for Congress to usher in federal
review under the generic rubric of “other collateral review”
in a statutory provision that refers expressly to “State”
review, while denominating expressly both “State” and
“Federal” proceedings in other parts of the same statute.
The anomaly is underscored by the fact that the words

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
174 DUNCAN v. WALKER
Opinion of the Court
“State” and “Federal” are likely to be of no small import
when Congress drafts a statute that governs federal col-
lateral review of state court judgments.
Further, were we to adopt respondent’s construction of
the statute, we would render the word “State” insignifi-
cant, if not wholly superfluous. “It is our duty ‘to give
effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute.’ ”
United States v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538–539 (1955)
(quoting Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 152 (1883));
see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 404 (2000) (de-
scribing this rule as a “cardinal principle of statutory con-
struction”); Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112, 115 (1879)
(“As early as in Bacon’s Abridgment, sect. 2, it was said
that ‘a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed
that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word
shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant’ ”). We are thus
“reluctan[t] to treat statutory terms as surplusage” in any
setting. Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for
Great Ore., 515 U. S. 687, 698 (1995); see also Ratzlaf v.
United States, 510 U. S. 135, 140 (1994). We are especially
unwilling to do so when the term occupies so pivotal a place
in the statutory scheme as does the word “State” in the
federal habeas statute. But under respondent’s rendition
of § 2244(d)(2), Congress’ inclusion of the word “State” has no
operative effect on the scope of the provision. If the phrase
“State post-conviction or other collateral review” is con-
strued to encompass both state and federal collateral re-
view, then the word “State” places no constraint on the class
of applications for review that toll the limitation period.
The clause instead would have precisely the same content
were it to read “post-conviction or other collateral review.”
The most that could then be made of the word “State”
would be to say that Congress singled out applications for
“State post-conviction” review as one example from the
universe of applications for collateral review. Under this
approach, however, the word “State” still does nothing to

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
175 Cite as: 533 U. S. 167 (2001)
Opinion of the Court
delimit the entire class of applications for review that toll
the limitation period. A construction under which the word
“State” does nothing more than further modify “post-
conviction” relegates “State” to quite an insignificant role
in the statutory provision. We believe that our duty to
“give each word some operative effect” where possible, Wal-
ters v. Metropolitan Ed. Enterprises, Inc., 519 U. S. 202, 209
(1997), requires more in this context.
The Court of Appeals characterized petitioner’s inter-
pretation as producing the “linguistic oddity” of “State other
collateral review,” which is “an ungainly construction that
[the Court of Appeals did] not believe Congress intended.”
208 F. 3d, at 360. But nothing precludes the application
of the word “State” to the entire phrase “post-conviction
or other collateral review,” regardless of the resulting con-
struction that one posits. The term “other collateral” is
easily understood as a unit to which “State” applies just
as “State” applies to “post-conviction.” Moreover, petition-
er’s interpretation does not compel the verbal formula hy-
pothesized by the Court of Appeals. Indeed, the ungainli-
ness of “State other collateral review” is a very good reason
why Congress might have avoided that precise verbal formu-
lation in the first place. The application of the word “State”
to the phrase “other collateral review” more naturally yields
the understanding “other State collateral review.”
The Court of Appeals also reasoned that petitioner’s
reading of the statute fails to give operative effect to the
phrase “other collateral review.” The court claimed that
“the phrase ‘other collateral review’ would be meaningless
if it did not refer to federal habeas petitions.” Ibid. This
argument, however, fails because it depends on the incor-
rect premise that there can be no form of state “collateral”
review “other” than state “post-conviction” review within
the meaning of § 2244(d)(2). To the contrary, it is possible
for “other collateral review” to include review of a state
court judgment that is not a criminal conviction.

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
176 DUNCAN v. WALKER
Opinion of the Court
Section 2244(d)(1)’s 1-year limitation period applies to
“an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” Sec-
tion 2244(d)(2) provides for tolling during the pendency of
“a properly filed application for State post-conviction or
other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judg-
ment or claim.” Nothing in the language of these provisions
requires that the state court judgment pursuant to which a
person is in custody be a criminal conviction. Nor does 28
U. S. C. § 2254 (1994 ed. and Supp. V) by its terms apply only
to those in custody pursuant to a state criminal conviction.
See, e. g., § 2254(a) (“a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court”); § 2254(b)(1) (“a person in cus-
tody pursuant to the judgment of a State court”); § 2254(d)
(“a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court”); § 2254(e)(1) (“a person in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court”).
Incarceration pursuant to a state criminal conviction may
be by far the most common and most familiar basis for sat-
isfaction of the “in custody” requirement in § 2254 cases.
But there are other types of state court judgments pursuant
to which a person may be held in custody within the meaning
of the federal habeas statute. For example, federal habeas
corpus review may be available to challenge the legality of a
state court order of civil commitment or a state court order
of civil contempt. See, e. g., Francois v. Henderson, 850 F.
2d 231 (CA5 1988) (entertaining a challenge brought in a
federal habeas petition under § 2254 to a state court’s com-
mitment of a person to a mental institution upon a verdict
of not guilty by reason of insanity); Leonard v. Hammond,
804 F. 2d 838 (CA4 1986) (holding that constitutional chal-
lenges to civil contempt orders for failure to pay child sup-
port were cognizable only in a habeas corpus action). These
types of state court judgments neither constitute nor re-
quire criminal convictions. Any state collateral review that
is available with respect to these judgments, strictly speak-

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
177 Cite as: 533 U. S. 167 (2001)
Opinion of the Court
ing, is not post-conviction review. Accordingly, even if
“ ‘ “State post-conviction review” means all collateral re-
view of a conviction provided by a state,’ ” 208 F. 3d, at 360
(quoting Barrett v. Yearwood, 63 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 1250
(ED Cal. 1999)), the phrase “other collateral review” need
not include federal habeas petitions in order to have in-
dependent meaning.
Congress also may have employed the construction “post-
conviction or other collateral” in recognition of the di-
verse terminology that different States employ to represent
the different forms of collateral review that are available
after a conviction. In some jurisdictions, the term “post-
conviction” may denote a particular procedure for review
of a conviction that is distinct from other forms of what
conventionally is considered to be postconviction review.
For example, Florida employs a procedure that is officially
entitled a “Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sen-
tence.” Fla. Rule Crim. Proc. 3.850 (2001). The Florida
courts have commonly referred to a Rule 3.850 motion as a
“motion for post-conviction relief ” and have distinguished
this procedure from other vehicles for collateral review of
a criminal conviction, such as a state petition for habeas
corpus. See, e. g., Bryant v. State, 780 So. 2d 978, 979 (Fla.
App. 2001) (“[A] petition for habeas corpus cannot be used
to circumvent the two-year period for filing motions for
post-conviction relief ”); Finley v. State, 394 So. 2d 215,
216 (Fla. App. 1981) (“[T]he remedy of habeas corpus is
not available as a substitute for post-conviction relief under
Rule 3.850”). Congress may have refrained from exclusive
reliance on the term “post-conviction” so as to leave no doubt
that the tolling provision applies to all types of state col-
lateral review available after a conviction and not just to
those denominated “post-conviction” in the parlance of a
particular jurisdiction.
Examination of another AEDPA provision also demon-
strates that “other collateral” need not refer to any form of

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
178 DUNCAN v. WALKER
Opinion of the Court
federal review in order to have meaning. Title 28 U. S. C.
§ 2263 (1994 ed., Supp. V) establishes the limitation period
for filing § 2254 petitions in state capital cases that arise from
jurisdictions meeting the “opt-in” requirements of § 2261.
Section 2263(b)(2) provides that the limitation period “shall
be tolled from the date on which the first petition for post-
conviction review or other collateral relief is filed until the
final State court disposition of such petition.” The refer-
ence to “the final State court disposition of such petition”
makes it clear that only petitions filed in state court, and
not petitions for federal review, toll the limitation period in
capital cases. Congress therefore used the phrases “post-
conviction review” and “other collateral relief ” in a disjunc-
tive clause where the term “other collateral,” whatever its
precise content, could not possibly include anything federal
within its ambit. This illustration vitiates any suggestion
that “other collateral” relief or review must include federal
relief or review in order for the term to have any significance
apart from “post-conviction” review.
Consideration of the competing constructions in light of
AEDPA’s purposes reinforces the conclusion that we draw
from the text. Petitioner’s interpretation of the statute
is consistent with “AEDPA’s purpose to further the prin-
ciples of comity, finality, and federalism.” Williams, 529
U. S., at 436. Specifically, under petitioner’s construction,
§ 2244(d)(2) promotes the exhaustion of state remedies while
respecting the interest in the finality of state court judg-
ments. Under respondent’s interpretation, however, the
provision would do far less to encourage exhaustion prior
to seeking federal habeas review and would hold greater
potential to hinder finality.
The exhaustion requirement of § 2254(b) ensures that the
state courts have the opportunity fully to consider federal-
law challenges to a state custodial judgment before the lower
federal courts may entertain a collateral attack upon that

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
179 Cite as: 533 U. S. 167 (2001)
Opinion of the Court
judgment. See, e. g., O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U. S. 838,
845 (1999) (“[T]he exhaustion doctrine is designed to give
the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal
constitutional claims before those claims are presented to the
federal courts”); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509, 518–519 (1982)
(“A rigorously enforced total exhaustion rule will encourage
state prisoners to seek full relief first from the state courts,
thus giving those courts the first opportunity to review all
claims of constitutional error”). This requirement “is prin-
cipally designed to protect the state courts’ role in the
enforcement of federal law and prevent disruption of state
judicial proceedings.” Id., at 518. The exhaustion rule
promotes comity in that “ ‘it would be unseemly in our dual
system of government for a federal district court to upset a
state court conviction without an opportunity to the state
courts to correct a constitutional violation.’ ” Ibid. (quoting
Darr v. Burford, 339 U. S. 200, 204 (1950)); see also O’Sulli-
van, supra, at 844 (“Comity thus dictates that when a pris-
oner alleges that his continued confinement for a state court
conviction violates federal law, the state courts should have
the first opportunity to review this claim and provide any
necessary relief ”).
The 1-year limitation period of § 2244(d)(1) quite plainly
serves the well-recognized interest in the finality of state
court judgments. See generally Calderon v. Thompson, 523
U. S. 538, 555–556 (1998). This provision reduces the poten-
tial for delay on the road to finality by restricting the time
that a prospective federal habeas petitioner has in which to
seek federal habeas review.
The tolling provision of § 2244(d)(2) balances the inter-
ests served by the exhaustion requirement and the limita-
tion period. Section 2244(d)(2) promotes the exhaustion of
state remedies by protecting a state prisoner’s ability later
to apply for federal habeas relief while state remedies are
being pursued. At the same time, the provision limits the

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
180 DUNCAN v. WALKER
Opinion of the Court
harm to the interest in finality by according tolling effect
only to “properly filed application[s] for State post-conviction
or other collateral review.”
By tolling the limitation period for the pursuit of state
remedies and not during the pendency of applications for
federal review, § 2244(d)(2) provides a powerful incentive
for litigants to exhaust all available state remedies before
proceeding in the lower federal courts. But if the statute
were construed so as to give applications for federal re-
view the same tolling effect as applications for state col-
lateral review, then § 2244(d)(2) would furnish little incentive
for individuals to seek relief from the state courts before
filing federal habeas petitions. The tolling provision in-
stead would be indifferent between state and federal filings.
While other statutory provisions, such as § 2254(b) itself, of
course, would still provide individuals with good reason to
exhaust, § 2244(d)(2) would be out of step with this design.
At the same time, respondent’s interpretation would further
undermine the interest in finality by creating more potential
for delay in the adjudication of federal law claims.
A diminution of statutory incentives to proceed first in
state court would also increase the risk of the very piece-
meal litigation that the exhaustion requirement is designed
to reduce. Cf. Rose, 455 U. S., at 520. We have observed
that “strict enforcement of the exhaustion requirement will
encourage habeas petitioners to exhaust all of their claims in
state court and to present the federal court with a single
habeas petition.” Ibid. But were we to adopt respond-
ent’s construction of § 2244(d)(2), we would dilute the efficacy
of the exhaustion requirement in achieving this objective.
Tolling the limitation period for a federal habeas petition
that is dismissed without prejudice would thus create more
opportunities for delay and piecemeal litigation without ad-
vancing the goals of comity and federalism that the exhaus-
tion requirement serves. We do not believe that Congress
designed the statute in this manner.

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
181 Cite as: 533 U. S. 167 (2001)
Opinion of the Court
The Court of Appeals reasoned that its interpretation
of the statute would further Congress’ goal “to spur de-
fendants to file their federal habeas petitions more quickly.”
208 F. 3d, at 361. But this view fails to account sufficiently
for AEDPA’s clear purpose to encourage litigants to pur-
sue claims in state court prior to seeking federal collateral
review. See, e. g., §§ 2254(b), 2254(e)(2), 2264(a). Section
2244(d)(1)’s limitation period and § 2244(d)(2)’s tolling pro-
vision, together with § 2254(b)’s exhaustion requirement, en-
courage litigants first to exhaust all state remedies and then
to file their federal habeas petitions as soon as possible.
Respondent contends that petitioner’s construction of the
statute creates the potential for unfairness to litigants who
file timely federal habeas petitions that are dismissed with-
out prejudice after the limitation period has expired. But
our sole task in this case is one of statutory construction,
and upon examining the language and purpose of the statute,
we are convinced that § 2244(d)(2) does not toll the limitation
period during the pendency of a federal habeas petition.
We also note that, when the District Court dismissed re-
spondent’s first federal habeas petition without prejudice,
respondent had more than nine months remaining in the
limitation period in which to cure the defects that led to
the dismissal. It is undisputed, however, that petitioner nei-
ther returned to state court nor filed a nondefective federal
habeas petition before this time had elapsed. Respondent’s
May 1997 federal habeas petition also contained claims dif-
ferent from those presented in his April 1996 petition. In
light of these facts, we have no occasion to address the alter-
native scenarios that respondent describes. We also have
no occasion to address the question that Justice Stevens
raises concerning the availability of equitable tolling.
We hold that an application for federal habeas corpus
review is not an “application for State post-conviction or
other collateral review” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C.
§ 2244(d)(2). Section 2244(d)(2) therefore did not toll the

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
182 DUNCAN v. WALKER
Opinion of Stevens, J.
limitation period during the pendency of respondent’s first
federal habeas petition. The judgment of the Court of Ap-
peals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further pro-
ceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter, concurring.
Although I join the Court’s opinion in full, I have joined
Justice Stevens’s separate opinion pointing out that
nothing bars a district court from retaining jurisdiction
pending complete exhaustion of state remedies, and that
a claim for equitable tolling could present a serious issue
on facts different from those before us.
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter joins,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
For substantially the reasons stated in the Court’s opinion,
ante, at 172–178, I agree that the better reading of 28 U. S. C.
§ 2244(d)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. V) is that it encompasses only
“State” applications for “post-conviction or other collateral
review.” Thus, as the Court holds, “an application for fed-
eral habeas corpus review is not an ‘application for State
post-conviction or other collateral review’ within the mean-
ing of 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(2).” Ante, at 181. I write sep-
arately to add two observations regarding the equitable
powers of the federal courts, which are unaffected by today’s
decision construing a single provision of the Antiterror-
ism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110
Stat. 1214.
First, although the Court’s pre-AEDPA decision in Rose
v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509, 522 (1982), prescribed the dismissal
of federal habeas corpus petitions containing unexhausted
claims, in our post-AEDPA world there is no reason why a
district court should not retain jurisdiction over a meritori-
ous claim and stay further proceedings pending the complete

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
183 Cite as: 533 U. S. 167 (2001)
Opinion of Stevens, J.
exhaustion of state remedies. Indeed, there is every reason
to do so when AEDPA gives a district court the alterna-
tive of simply denying a petition containing unexhausted but
nonmeritorious claims, see 28 U. S. C. § 2254(b)(2) (1994 ed.,
Supp. V), and when the failure to retain jurisdiction would
foreclose federal review of a meritorious claim because of the
lapse of AEDPA’s 1-year limitations period.
Second, despite the Court’s suggestion that tolling the
limitations period for a first federal habeas petition would
undermine the “purposes” of AEDPA, see ante, at 178–182,
neither the Court’s narrow holding, nor anything in the text
or legislative history of AEDPA, precludes a federal court
from deeming the limitations period tolled for such a peti-
tion as a matter of equity. The Court’s opinion does not ad-
dress a federal court’s ability to toll the limitations period
apart from § 2244(d)(2). See ante, at 181. Furthermore, a
federal court might very well conclude that tolling is appro-
priate based on the reasonable belief that Congress could not
have intended to bar federal habeas review for petitioners
who invoke the court’s jurisdiction within the 1-year interval
prescribed by AEDPA.
After all, federal habeas corpus has evolved as the prod-
uct of both judicial doctrine and statutory law. See gener-
ally E. Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 15 (3d ed. 1999).
In the context of AEDPA’s 1-year limitations period, which
by its terms runs from “the date on which the judgment
became final,” see § 2244(d)(1)(A), the Courts of Appeals have
uniformly created a 1-year grace period, running from the
date of AEDPA’s enactment, for prisoners whose state con-
victions became final prior to AEDPA.1 Similarly, federal
1 See, e. g., Gaskins v. Duval, 183 F. 3d 8, 9 (CA1 1999); Ross v. Artuz,
150 F. 3d 97, 100–103 (CA2 1998); Burns v. Morton, 134 F. 3d 109, 111–112
(CA3 1998); Brown v. Angelone, 150 F. 3d 370, 374–376 (CA4 1998); United
States v. Flores, 135 F. 3d 1000, 1002, n. 7, 1006 (CA5 1998); Austin v.
Mitchell, 200 F. 3d 391, 393 (CA6 1999); Lindh v. Murphy, 96 F. 3d 856,

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
184 DUNCAN v. WALKER
Opinion of Stevens, J.
courts may well conclude that Congress simply overlooked
the class of petitioners whose timely filed habeas petitions
remain pending in district court past the limitations period,
only to be dismissed after the court belatedly realizes that
one or more claims have not been exhausted.2 See post, at
186 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (district courts on average take
268 days to dismiss petitions on procedural grounds; 10% re-
main pending more than 2 years). As a result, equitable
considerations may make it appropriate for federal courts
to fill in a perceived omission on the part of Congress by
tolling AEDPA’s statute of limitations for unexhausted fed-
eral habeas petitions. Today’s ruling does not preclude that
possibility, given the limited issue presented in this case and
the Court’s correspondingly limited holding.3
I concur in the Court’s holding on the understanding that
it does not foreclose either of the above safeguards against
the potential for injustice that a literal reading of § 2244(d)(2)
might otherwise produce.
866 (CA7 1996) (en banc), rev’d on other grounds, 521 U. S. 320 (1997); Ford
v. Bowersox, 178 F. 3d 522, 523 (CA8 1999); Calderon v. District Court,
128 F. 3d 1283, 1286–1287 (CA9 1997), overruled on other grounds, 163 F.
3d 530, 539–540 (CA9 1998); Hoggro v. Boone, 150 F. 3d 1223, 1225–1226
(CA10 1998); Wilcox v. Florida Dept. of Corrections, 158 F. 3d 1209, 1211
(CA11 1998).
2 The question whether a claim has been exhausted can often be a dif-
ficult one, not just for prisoners unschooled in the immense complexities
of federal habeas corpus law, see post, at 190–191 (Breyer, J., dissenting),
but also for district courts, see, e. g., Morgan v. Bennett, 204 F. 3d 360,
369–371 (CA2 2000) (disagreeing with District Court’s conclusion that
claim had not been exhausted); Bear v. Boone, 173 F. 3d 782, 784–785
(CA10 1999) (same).
3 Thus the court below, which resolved the case based on its reading
of 28 U. S. C. § 2244(d)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. V), and which therefore did not
reach the question whether it “should exercise its equitable powers to
exclude the [time] during which the first [habeas] petition was pending,”
208 F. 3d 357, 362 (CA2 2000), is free to consider the issue on remand.

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
185 Cite as: 533 U. S. 167 (2001)
Breyer, J., dissenting
Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins,
dissenting.
The federal habeas corpus statute limits the period of time
during which a state prisoner may file a federal habeas peti-
tion to one year, ordinarily running from the time the pris-
oner’s conviction becomes final in the state courts. See 28
U. S. C. § 2244(d) (1994 ed., Supp. V). Section 2244(d)(2) tolls
that 1-year period while “a properly filed application for
State post-conviction or other collateral review . . . is pend-
ing.” The question before us is whether this tolling pro-
vision applies to federal, as well as state, collateral review
proceedings. Do the words “other collateral review” en-
compass federal habeas corpus proceedings? I believe that
they do.
To understand my conclusion, one must understand why
the legal issue before us is significant. Why would a state
prisoner ever want federal habeas corpus proceedings to toll
the federal habeas corpus limitations period? After all, the
very point of tolling is to provide a state prisoner adequate
time to file a federal habeas petition. If the prisoner has
already filed that petition, what need is there for further
tolling?
The answer to this question—and the problem that gives
rise to the issue before us—is that a federal court may be
required to dismiss a state prisoner’s federal habeas peti-
tion, not on the merits, but because that prisoner has not
exhausted his state collateral remedies for every claim pre-
sented in the federal petition. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(b)(1)
(1994 ed., Supp. V) (requiring petitioners to exhaust state
remedies before filing federal habeas petition); cf. Rose v.
Lundy, 455 U. S. 509, 510 (1982) (holding, under predeces-
sor to current § 2254, that district courts cannot reach the
merits of “mixed” petitions containing both exhausted and
unexhausted claims). Such a dismissal means that a pris-
oner wishing to pursue the claim must return to state court,

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
186 DUNCAN v. WALKER
Breyer, J., dissenting
pursue his state remedies, and then, if he loses, again file a
federal habeas petition in federal court. All this takes time.
The statute tolls the 1-year limitations period during the
time the prisoner proceeds in the state courts. But unless
the statute also tolls the limitations period during the time
the defective petition was pending in federal court, the state
prisoner may find, when he seeks to return to federal court,
that he has run out of time.
This possibility is not purely theoretical. A Justice De-
partment study indicates that 63% of all habeas petitions
are dismissed, and 57% of those are dismissed for failure to
exhaust state remedies. See U. S. Dept. of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal
Habeas Corpus Review: Challenging State Court Criminal
Convictions 17 (1995) (hereinafter Federal Habeas Corpus
Review). And it can take courts a significant amount of
time to dispose of even those petitions that are not addressed
on the merits; on the average, district courts took 268 days
to dismiss petitions on procedural grounds. Id., at 23–24;
see also id., at 19 (of all habeas petitions, nearly half were
pending in the district court for six months or longer; 10%
were pending more than two years). Thus, if the words
“other collateral review” do not include federal collateral
review, a large group of federal habeas petitioners, seek-
ing to return to federal court after subsequent state-court
rejection of an unexhausted claim, may find their claims
time barred. Moreover, because district courts vary sub-
stantially in the time they take to rule on habeas petitions,
two identically situated prisoners can receive opposite re-
sults. If Prisoner A and Prisoner B file mixed petitions in
different district courts six months before the federal limi-
tations period expires, and the court takes three months
to dismiss Prisoner A’s petition, but seven months to dis-
miss Prisoner B’s petition, Prisoner A will be able to re-
turn to federal court after exhausting state remedies, but
Prisoner B—due to no fault of his own—may not.

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
187 Cite as: 533 U. S. 167 (2001)
Breyer, J., dissenting
On the other hand, if the words “other collateral review”
include federal collateral review, state prisoners whose fed-
eral claims have been dismissed for nonexhaustion will
simply add to the 1-year limitations period the time they
previously spent in both state and federal proceedings.
Other things being equal, they will be able to return to fed-
eral court after pursuing the state remedies that remain
available. And similarly situated prisoners will not suffer
different outcomes simply because they file their petitions
in different district courts.
The statute’s language, read by itself, does not tell us
whether the words “State post-conviction or other collat-
eral review” include federal habeas proceedings. Rather,
it is simply unclear whether Congress intended the word
“State” to modify “post-conviction” review alone, or also to
modify “other collateral review” (as the majority believes).
Indeed, most naturally read, the statute refers to two dis-
tinct kinds of applications: (1) applications for “State post-
conviction” review and (2) applications for “other collateral
review,” a broad category that, on its face, would include
applications for federal habeas review. The majority’s read-
ing requires either an unusual intonation—“State post-
conviction-or-other-collateral review”—or a slight rewrite of
the language, by inserting the word “State” where it does
not appear, between “other” and “collateral.” Regardless, I
believe that either reading is possible. The statute’s words,
by themselves, have no singular “plain meaning.”
Neither do I believe that the various interpretive canons
to which the majority appeals can solve the problem. In-
voking the principle that “ ‘Congress acts intentionally and
purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion’ ” of particu-
lar words, Bates v. United States, 522 U. S. 23, 29–30 (1997)
(quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983)),
the majority attempts to ascertain Congress’ intent by look-
ing to the tolling provision’s statutory neighbors. It points
to other provisions where Congress explicitly used the

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
188 DUNCAN v. WALKER
Breyer, J., dissenting
words “State” and “Federal” together, expressing its intent
to cover both kinds of proceedings. See ante, at 172–173
(citing 28 U. S. C. § 2254(i) (1994 ed., Supp. V); § 2261(e);
§ 2264(a)(3)). And it reasons that Congress’ failure to do so
here displays a different intent.
But other statutory neighbors show that, when Congress
wished unambiguously to limit tolling to state proceedings,
“it knew how to do so.” Custis v. United States, 511 U. S.
485, 492 (1994). In the special tolling provision governing
certain capital cases, Congress said explicitly that the limi-
tations period is tolled “from the date on which the first
petition for post-conviction review or other collateral relief
is filed until the final State court disposition of such peti-
tion,” thus making it clear that federal proceedings, for
example, petitions for certiorari, do not count. 28 U. S. C.
§ 2263(b)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. V) (emphasis added). Does Con-
gress’ failure to include a similar qualification in § 2244’s
tolling provision show that it means that provision to cover
both federal and state proceedings? In fact, the “argu-
ment from neighbors” shows only that Congress might have
spoken more clearly than it did. It cannot prove the statu-
tory point.
The majority also believes that only its interpretation
gives effect to every word in the statute—in particular the
word “State.” It asks: If Congress meant to cover federal
habeas review, why does the word “State” appear in the
statute? Federal habeas proceedings are a form of post-
conviction proceedings. So, had Congress meant to cover
them, it would have just said “post-conviction and other
collateral review.” See ante, at 174.
But this argument proves too much, for one can ask with
equal force: If Congress intended to exclude federal habeas
proceedings, why does the word “post-conviction” appear
in the statute? State postconviction proceedings are a form
of collateral review. So, had Congress meant to exclude fed-
eral collateral proceedings, it could have just said “State col-

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
189 Cite as: 533 U. S. 167 (2001)
Breyer, J., dissenting
lateral review,” thereby clearly indicating that the phrase
applies only to state proceedings.
In fact, this kind of argument, viewed realistically, gets
us nowhere. Congress probably picked out “State post-
conviction” proceedings from the universe of collateral pro-
ceedings and mentioned it separately because state post-
conviction proceedings are a salient example of collateral
proceedings. But to understand this is not to understand
whether the universe from which Congress picked “State
post-conviction” proceedings as an example is the universe of
all collateral proceedings, or the universe of state collateral
proceedings. The statute simply does not say.
Indeed, the majority recognizes that neither the statute’s
language nor the application of canons of construction is
sufficient to resolve the problem. It concedes that the
phrase “other collateral review,” if construed as “other
[state] collateral review,” would add little to the coverage
that the words “State post-conviction . . . review” would
provide in its absence. See ante, at 176 (noting that a state
criminal conviction is “by far the most common” basis for
seeking federal habeas review). The majority resolves this
difficulty by noting that “other collateral review” could
also include either review of state civil confinement pro-
ceedings or state postconviction review to which a State re-
fers by some other name, such as state “habeas” proceedings.
See ante, at 176–177.
But it is difficult to believe that Congress had state civil
proceedings in mind, given that other provisions within
§ 2244 indicate that Congress saw criminal proceedings as
its basic subject matter. For instance, the exceptions to
the bar against successive petitions in § 2244(d) seem to pre-
sume that the petition at issue challenges a criminal con-
viction. See 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(2)(A) (1994 ed., Supp. V)
(requiring a “new rule of constitutional law, made retroac-
tive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court”);
§ 2244(b)(2)(B) (requiring new evidence establishing that,

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
190 DUNCAN v. WALKER
Breyer, J., dissenting
“but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would
have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense”).
Nor does it seem likely that Congress would have expected
federal courts applying the tolling provision to construe
“post-conviction” review to exclude state “habeas” petitions
challenging convictions. The statute in which the words
“State post-conviction proceedings” appear is a federal stat-
ute, and federal courts would be likely to apply those words
to whatever state proceedings in fact fall within this federal
description, whatever different labels different States might
choose to attach. It is simpler, more meaningful, and just
as logical to assume that Congress meant the words “other
collateral review” to cast a wider net—a net wide enough
to include federal collateral proceedings such as those that
precede a dismissal for nonexhaustion.
Faced with this statutory ambiguity, I would look to stat-
utory purposes in order to reach a proper interpretation.
And, while I agree that Congress sought to “ ‘further the
principles of comity, finality, and federalism,’ ” ante, at 178
(quoting Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 420, 436 (2000)),
I would also ask whether Congress would have intended
to create the kind of “unexhausted petition” problem that
I described at the outset. The answer is no. Congress en-
acted a statute that all agree gave state prisoners a full year
(plus the duration of state collateral proceedings) to file a
federal habeas corpus petition. Congress would not have
intended to shorten that time dramatically, at random, and
perhaps erase it altogether, “den[ying] the petitioner the
protections of the Great Writ entirely,” Lonchar v. Thomas,
517 U. S. 314, 324 (1996), simply because the technical nature
of the habeas rules led a prisoner initially to file a petition
in the wrong court.
The majority’s argument assumes a congressional desire
to strengthen the prisoners’ incentive to file in state court
first. But that is not likely to be the result of today’s
holding. After all, virtually every state prisoner already

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
191 Cite as: 533 U. S. 167 (2001)
Breyer, J., dissenting
knows that he must first exhaust state-court remedies; and
I imagine that virtually all of them now try to do so. The
problem arises because the vast majority of federal habeas
petitions are brought without legal representation. See
Federal Habeas Corpus Review 14 (finding that 93% of ha-
beas petitioners in study were pro se). Prisoners acting
pro se will often not know whether a change in wording
between state and federal petitions will be seen in federal
court as a new claim or a better way of stating an old one;
and they often will not understand whether new facts
brought forward in the federal petition reflect a new claim
or better support for an old one. Insofar as that is so,
the Court’s approach is likely to lead not to fewer improper
federal petitions, but to increased confusion, as prisoners
hesitate to change the language of state petitions or add
facts, and to greater unfairness. And it will undercut one
significant purpose of the provision before us—to grant state
prisoners a fair and reasonable time to bring a first federal
habeas corpus petition.
Nor is it likely that prisoners will deliberately seek to
delay by repeatedly filing unexhausted petitions in fed-
eral court, as the Court suggests. See ante, at 180. First,
prisoners not under a sentence of death (the vast majority
of habeas petitioners) have no incentive to delay adjudica-
tion of their claims. Rather, “[t]he prisoner’s principal in-
terest . . . is in obtaining speedy federal relief.” Rose v.
Lundy, 455 U. S., at 520. Second, the prisoner who chooses
to go into federal court with unexhausted claims runs the
risk that the district court will simply deny those claims on
the merits, as it is permitted to do, see 28 U. S. C. § 2254(b)(2)
(1994 ed., Supp. V), before the prisoner has had the oppor-
tunity to develop a record in state court. Third, district
courts have the power to prevent vexatious repeated filings
by, for instance, ordering that a petition filed after a mixed
petition is dismissed must contain only exhausted claims.
See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U. S. 473, 489 (2000). Thus,

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
192 DUNCAN v. WALKER
Breyer, J., dissenting
the interest in reducing “piecemeal litigation,” ante, at 180,
is not likely to be significantly furthered by the majority’s
holding.
Finally, the majority’s construction of the statute will not
necessarily promote comity. Federal courts, understanding
that dismissal for nonexhaustion may mean the loss of any
opportunity for federal habeas review, may tend to read am-
biguous earlier state-court proceedings as having adequately
exhausted a federal petition’s current claims. For similar
reasons, wherever possible, they may reach the merits of a
federal petition’s claims without sending the petitioner back
to state court for exhaustion. To that extent, the majority’s
interpretation will result in a lesser, not a greater, respect
for the state interests to which the majority refers. In addi-
tion, by creating pressure to expedite consideration of ha-
beas petitions and to reach the merits of arguably exhausted
claims, it will impose a heavier burden on the district courts.
(While Justice Stevens’ sound suggestions that district
courts hold mixed petitions in abeyance and employ equita-
ble tolling, see ante, at 182–184 (opinion concurring in part
and concurring in judgment), would properly ameliorate
some of the unfairness of the majority’s interpretation, they
will also add to the burdens on the district courts in a way
that simple tolling for federal habeas petitions would not.)
In two recent cases, we have assumed that Congress did
not want to deprive state prisoners of first federal habeas
corpus review, and we have interpreted statutory ambi-
guities accordingly. In Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523
U. S. 637 (1998), we held that a federal habeas petition filed
after the initial filing was dismissed as premature should not
be deemed a “second or successive” petition barred by § 2244,
lest “dismissal . . . for technical procedural reasons . . . bar
the prisoner from ever obtaining federal habeas review.”
Id., at 645. And in Slack v. McDaniel, we held that a
federal habeas petition filed after dismissal of an initial
filing for nonexhaustion should not be deemed a “second

533US1 Unit: $U74 [10-17-02 19:11:55] PAGES PGT: OPIN
193 Cite as: 533 U. S. 167 (2001)
Breyer, J., dissenting
or successive petition,” lest “the complete exhaustion rule”
become a “ ‘trap’ ” for “ ‘the unwary pro se prisoner.’ ” 529
U. S., at 487 (quoting Rose, supra, at 520). Making the same
assumption here, I would interpret the ambiguous provision
before us to permit tolling for federal habeas petitions.
In both Martinez-Villareal and Slack, the Court dis-
cerned the purpose of an ambiguous statutory provision
by assuming that (absent a contrary indication) congres-
sional purpose would mirror that of most reasonable human
beings knowledgeable about the area of the law in question.
And the Court kept those purposes firmly and foremost in
mind as it sought to understand the statute. See Slack,
supra, at 486–487; Martinez-Villareal, supra, at 644 (re-
fusing to adopt an interpretation whose “implications for
habeas practice would be far reaching and seemingly per-
verse”). Today it takes a different approach—an approach
that looks primarily, though not exclusively, to linguistic
canons to dispel the uncertainties caused by ambiguity.
Where statutory language is ambiguous, I believe these pri-
orities are misplaced. Language, dictionaries, and canons,
unilluminated by purpose, can lead courts into blind alleys,
producing rigid interpretations that can harm those whom
the statute affects. If generalized, the approach, bit by bit,
will divorce law from the needs, lives, and values of those
whom it is meant to serve—a most unfortunate result for a
people who live their lives by law’s light. The Court was
right in Martinez-Villareal and Slack to see purpose as key
to the statute’s meaning and to understand Congress as
intending the same; it is wrong to reverse its interpretive
priorities here.
With respect, I dissent.