Tatum

MEMORANDUM **

John Tatum appeals the district court’s dismissal of his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely. We affirm the decision of the district court.

In Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231-32 , 124 S.Ct. 2441 , 159 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004), the Supreme Court held that district courts are not required to warn pro se habeas petitioners that their federal claims could be time-barred absent equitable tolling if a petitioner opts to dismiss a mixed petition without prejudice and to return to state court to exhaust all claims. The Court indicated that district courts are not required to advise pro se petitioners about a stay-and-abeyance procedure and are under no obligation to “explain! ] the details of federal habeas procedure and caleulat[e] statutes of limitations.” Id. at 231 , 124 S.Ct. 2441 . In Brambles v. Duncan, 412 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2005), we followed Pliler , affirming a district court’s denial of a pro se petition where the petitioner had filed a mixed petition, and where the district court had dismissed the petition after the one-year statute of limitations had expired without informing the petitioner about the stay-and-abeyance procedure. As we…