ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, District Judge.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on this petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. See ECF Nos. 3, 14.

Before the court are: (1) petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 15); and (2) respondent's motion to dismiss the petition as untimely (ECF No. 18). Petitioner opposes the motion to dismiss and, in his opposition, asks the court in essence for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. See ECF No. 23. For the reasons outlined below, the court will grant the motion to appoint counsel, grant the requests for discovery and an evidentiary hearing, and vacate the motion to dismiss, subject to automatic reinstatement upon re-noticing by respondent.

Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition, alleging that it is untimely filed. Petitioner argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling for, among other things, the time that he was out-to-court and the time that he was without his legal files. Respondent argues that petitioner exaggerates the dates when he was out to court.2 Respondent concedes, however, that if petitioner is entitled to tolling for two of the three time periods when he was out to court, the petition would be timely filed. See ECF No. 21 at 5:17-22.

Petitioner has alleged sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing on the issue of equitable tolling. Roy v. Lambert, 465 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2006) ("A habeas petitioner. . . . should receive an evidentiary hearing when he makes a `good-faith allegation that would, if true, entitle him to equitable tolling."), citing Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 415 (2005) (petitioner must demonstrate that petitioner has been pursuing rights diligently and that some extraordinary circumstance stood in petitioner's way). See also Bryant v. Arizona Attorney General, 499 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir. 2007) (petitioner must establish that extraordinary circumstances were the cause of petitioner's untimeliness).

In anticipation of an evidentiary hearing, the court will authorize the parties to take discovery. Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases ("Habeas Rules"), Rule 6(a). To assist the parties, and the court, with this process, the court will also appoint counsel for the petitioner for the limited purpose of litigating the equitable tolling issue (to include, without limitation, discovery and the evidentiary hearing). Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT