Whether the Ninth Circuit abdicated its responsibility under Chavis when it treated a pincite in a summary denial to a page of a state opinion that addresses three distinct procedural bars as establishing that a California petition was untimely, when that petition was filed less than three weeks after habeas relief was denied in the lower court, the lower court did not deny the petition before it as untimely, and the State admitted that the lower court petition tolled the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)?

Question Presented This Court explained in Evans v. Chavis, 546 U.S. 189 (2006), that a habeas corpus petition filed in a California appellate court within 30 to 60 days after the denial of habeas relief in a lower court is filed within a reasonable time and tolls the federal habeas statute of limitations. Chavis held that in the absence of a “clear indication” that a state petition was untimely filed, a federal habeas court “must itself examine the delay” “and determine what the state courts would have held in respect to timeliness.” Jd. at 198. Did the Ninth Circuit abdicate its responsibility under Chavis when it treated a pincite in a summary denial to a page ofa state opinion that addresses three distinct procedural bars as establishing that a California petition was untimely, when that petition was filed less than three weeks after habeas relief was denied in the lower court, the lower court did not deny the petition before it as untimely, and the State admitted that the lower court petition tolled the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)?