Schinkel

MEMORANDUM *

Michael Schinkel appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d). Schinkel contends, inter alia, that he is *258 entitled to statutory or equitable tolling of that statute’s limitations period because he was denied access to a law library during the period in which his petition was required to be filed. We reverse the dismissal and remand to the district court for further inquiry into whether Schinkel’s alleged lack of access to a law library demands tolling.

This court reviews de novo a district court’s denial of a § 2254 petition as untimely. Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999). Since the district court’s dismissal of Schinkel’s petition, we have held that an inadequate prison library might qualify a habeas petitioner for equitable tolling of the AEDPA statute of limitations, or, alternatively, might be an “impediment” under § 2244(d)(1)(B). See Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146, 1148 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc).

In Whalem, a habeas petitioner alleged that his prison law library did not contain legal materials…