Dossman

MEMORANDUM **

Stephen Dossman (“Dossman”), a California state prisoner, appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The District Court found the petition to be procedurally barred because of the untimeliness rule *699 established by the California Supreme Court in In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770 , 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 153 , 959 P.2d 311 (1998). We vacate and remand pursuant to King v. LaMarque, 464 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir.2006).

A state prisoner generally may not raise a claim in federal habeas if he or she has defaulted on the claim “by violating a state procedural rule which would constitute adequate and independent grounds to bar direct review in the U.S. Supreme Court.” Wells v. Maass, 28 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir.1994) (citing Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30, 750-51 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991)). Although Dossman was found to have violated California’s untimeliness rule, which bars review where there has been “substantial delay” without “good cause,” Robbins, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 153 , 959 P.2d at 317 , he argues that the rule is not adequate to support the judgment. Dossman contends that the untimeliness rule was not “clear,…