With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. Diaz contends that the district court erred in dismissing his petition as untimely. He relies on Mendoza v. Carey, 449 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir.2006), to argue that he is entitled to equitable tolling because he did not have access to Spanish language materials or bilingual assistance. However, he fails to sufficiently “demonstrate that during the running of the AEDPA time limitations, he was unable, despite diligent efforts, to procure either legal materials in his own language or translation assistance from an inmate, library personnel, or other source” which could constitute grounds for equitable tolling. See Mendoza, 449 F.3d at 1068-70 (<HOLDING>) (italics added). In a related claim, Diaz

A: recognizing that equitable tolling may be justified if language barriers actually prevent timely filing
B: holding that the timely filing of an eeoc charge is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
C: recognizing that equitable tolling doctrines may toll the time period for filing
D: holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling
A.