With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". him that he would be notified as soon as a decision was made. After over a year had passed, Knight, on his own initiative, contacted the clerk seeking information about the status of his case. Until the clerk responded, Knight had no way of knowing that his state remedies had been exhausted. The law is clear that he could not file a federal motion until his pending state application was denied. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(e). Therefore, he had every reason to delay such filing until he knew that state relief had been denied. Such circumstances meet the requirements of Sandvik so that Knight was entitled to have the time limitations of AEDPA equitably tolled until the date that he received notice that the state court had denied relief. See Woodward v. Williams, 263 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Phillips v. Donnelly, 216 F.3d 508, 511 (5th

A: holding that equitable tolling is only available when an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control
B: holding that aedpas statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling only when an inmate diligently pursues his claims and demonstrates that the failure to timely file was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond his control
C: holding that lack of knowledge of state court decision may provide basis for equitable tolling when prisoner acts diligently
D: holding title vii subject to equitable tolling
C.