Wafer

MEMORANDUM *

Anthony Darnell Wafer (Wafer) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus as untimely.

1. Wafer is not entitled to statutory tolling. The California Supreme Court’s citation to In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 , 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 855 P.2d 729 (1998) (in bank), reflected the intention to dismiss Wafer’s second and third state ha-beas petitions as untimely. See In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770 , 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 158 , 959 P.2d 311 , 322 n. 9 (1998) (citing generally to Clark in dismissing petition as untimely); see also Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146 , 1152 n. 3 (9th Cir.2000) (noting that Clark “dealt specifically with the bar of untimeliness”). Because his procedurally-barred state petitions did not toll the limitations period for filing a federal habe-as petition, Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417 , 125 S.Ct. 1807 , 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005), the district court did not err in denying statutory tolling.

2. Wafer is entitled to equitable tolling. In his objection to Adams’ motion to dismiss, Wafer stated that

Construing Wafer’s pro se federal habeas petition broadly, see Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir.2006), as…