(petition for clemency-under Washington state law is not an application for “state post-conviction or other collateral review” and therefore does not toll the statute); see also Moore v. Cain, 298 F.3d 361, 366-67 (5th Cir.2002) (state court mandamus application requesting trial court be directed to rule on state habeas application is not application for collateral review with respect to prisoner’s conviction, and does not toll one-year limitation period), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1236, 123 S.Ct. 1360, 155 L.Ed.2d 202 (2003); Hodge v. Greiner, 269 F.3d 104, 107 (2d Cir.2001) (finding no basis for equitable tolling where petitioner sought discovery through state mandamus proceeding, rather than timely filing habeas petition); Johnson v. Lewis, 310 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1125-26 (C.D.Cal.2004) (<HOLDING>). Thus, this Court finds no basis to
holding that under the law of the district of columbia the filing of a complaint does not toll the statute of limitations on a counterclaim holding that such a dismissal may provide grounds to equitably toll the statute of limitations for a second habeas petition holding that the concealment of ones identity does not toll the running of the statute of limitations holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations holding petition for writ of mandate seeking return of property does not toll the statute of limitations