Does the plain meaning of 'properly filed' in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) include a timely filed motion for the determination of the state appellate court's jurisdiction to review the lower court's post-conviction denial?

QUESTION PRESENTED This case involves important and recurring access to justice issues in the context of habeas corpus rights under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Under the AEDPA, a state prisoner must file for federal habeas corpus relief within one year of state proceedings becoming final, excluding “[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review” is pending. In the present case, after his unsuccessful state post-conviction proceeding at the trial court level, which would ordinarily not be appealable under state law, the petitioner moved in the Oregon Court of Appeals for a determination of whether the appellate court had jurisdiction. The state appellate court granted the petitioner’s motion to determine jurisdiction, describing the lower court’s ruling as “a hodgepodge of legal mumbo jumbo.” The appellate court then denied jurisdiction based on arguments made in opposition to the petitioner’s motion. The federal district court dismissed his subsequent habeas corpus petition as untimely, concluding that the state appellate court’s determination regarding jurisdiction had consumed the one-year federal statute of limitations. The question presented is: Does the plain meaning of “properly filed” in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) include a timely filed motion for the determination of the state appellate court’s jurisdiction to review the lower court’s post-conviction denial?