The U.S. Supreme Court case Carlos Jimenez v. Nathaniel Quarterman, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (2008) revolved around the issue of habeas corpus petitions and their filing deadlines under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The petitioner, Carlos Jimenez was a prisoner who had filed his federal habeas petition after the AEDPA's one-year deadline due to state court reevaluation of his conviction which took longer than expected. He argued that this period should be excluded from AEDPA’s 1-year limitation because it involved "collateral review" in state court as per Section 2244(d)(2) of AEDPA. The Fifth Circuit disagreed with him stating that such exclusion only applies when direct review process is ongoing or during application for certiorari at Supreme Court level but not during collateral review post-conviction relief proceedings in state courts. However, the U.S Supreme Court reversed this decision unanimously holding that time spent on a properly filed application for State post-conviction review can indeed be deducted from AEDPA's one year limit even if it occurs after conclusion of direct appeal process within states' highest courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Carlos Jimenez v. Nathaniel Quarterman, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal law regarding habeas corpus petitions from state prisoners. He argued that a petitioner should only be granted one year to file a petition after his conviction becomes final, regardless of whether he pursues further appeals in state court. According to Scalia, this rule is clear and straightforward and does not require any additional interpretation or exceptions as suggested by the majority. He also criticized the majority for creating confusion and uncertainty about when exactly a prisoner's one-year filing period begins if it can be delayed by subsequent appeals in state court.