With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Rodney Blach (Blach) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his untimely petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He contends that he was prevented from filing a timely petition due to difficulty gaining access to his legal papers, being placed in isolation, and his transfer to a different prison facility. Blach argues that due to extraordinary circumstances and his diligence to overcome those circumstances, he is entitled to equitable tolling. See Lakey v. Hickman, 633 F.3d 782, 784 (9th Cir.2011), as amended. But the ability to file other petitions for post-conviction relief during the AEDPA limitations period demonstrates that a petitioner also had the ability to file a federal habeas petition. See Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 773 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Blach was able to prepare a truncated

A: holding that the district court properly denied petitioners request for an evidentiary hearing on equitable tolling where the petitioner filed several petitions for postconviction relief containing the same arguments presented in his federal habeas petition
B: holding that the petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling where he filed his habeas petition more than two months late
C: holding that the district court must resolve all claims for relief raised in a habeas petition regardless of whether habeas relief is granted or denied
D: holding that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing when the petitioners habeas submissions demonstrate that the petitioner is conclusively entitled to relief in such circumstances an evidentiary hearing would be a waste of judicial resources
A.