With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 544 U.S. at 419, 125 S.Ct. 1807 (“Under long-established principles, petitioner’s lack of diligence precludes equity’s operation.”). The magistrate judge made no error in concluding as a matter of fact that counsel had not been particularly diligent in pursuing the state claims, or for that matter, waiting until what counsel thought was the last day on which to file the federal habeas petition. The magistrate judge was careful to distinguish counsel’s lack of diligence from Trapp’s own diligence, at least as to preserving Trapp’s federal habeas claims. Further, she recognized the special conditions — organic brain damage — under which Trapp operated. Those conditions were not, however, the cause of the late filing. See Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Court, 163 F.3d 530, 541 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Woodford v.

A: holding that a petitioners mental incompetency can constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling if it interferes with his ability to communicate with his attorney
B: holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling
C: holding equitable tolling available if an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control
D: holding that mental incapacity is an extraordinary circumstance that may warrant equitable tolling
A.