Hamlet

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner-Appellant Claudius Johnson appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as time-barred. Johnson contends that the statute of limitations should be statutorily and/or equitably tolled to render his petition timely filed under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . After a de novo review, Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045, 1047 (9th Cir.2003), we affirm.

Johnson is not entitled to statutory tolling during the time his petitions for writ of mandate were pending in the California state courts. Statutory tolling applies while a “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2). Section 2244(d)(2) does not apply here because Johnson’s mandate petitions sought orders to compel document production, not review of the pertinent judgment or claim.

Nor is Johnson entitled to equitable tolling. Although the magistrate judge addressed equitable tolling in his report and recommendation, this case is primarily about statutory…