is not undermined by the fact that, as the petitioner observes, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(e) provides that, “[w]henever a party has the right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within a prescribed period of time after the service of notice or other paper upon the party, and the notice or paper is served upon the party by mail, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(e). As I already have stated, the statute of limitations is tolled for the time period during which a properly filed post-conviction motions is “pending.” Whether the petitioner or his attorney received notice of the court’s decisions on the relevant motions by mail or otherwise is therefore irrelevant. Cf. Hatchell v. United States, 776 F.2d 244, 246 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) provides
holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered holding that rule 6e is inapplicable where the time for filing begins to run on the date of mailing holding that limitation period begins to run at the time of the breach holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court holding that where the violation of the fdcpa was the filing of a lawsuit the statule of limitations begins to run on the date of filing