Reid

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Barrington Reid appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). Reviewing de novo, Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001), we vacate and remand.

Denying Reid’s petition as proeedurally defaulted, the district court found that the California Supreme Court’s citation to In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 , 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 855 P.2d 729 (1993), invoked California’s untimeliness bar. However, given the nature of Reid’s state court proceedings, it is unclear whether the Clark citation in this case was a reference to untimeliness or a reference to California’s rule against piecemeal presentation of claims and repetitious habeas petitions. Compare Clark, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 855 P.2d at 750 (“[A] habeas corpus petitioner who had knowledge that grounds for a habeas corpus petition existed was on notice that any substantial delay in filing a petition after the grounds became known had to be justified.”), with id. at 740 (“[T]he court will not consider repeated applications for habeas corpus presenting claims previously rejected .... [or]…