MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner-Appellant Darrel King appeals the district court’s decision granting Respondent-Appellee’s motion to dismiss and denying King’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Although King concedes that his habeas petition was untimely under the one-year period of limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, he argues that the district court erred in holding that equitable tolling does not apply. We review this determination de novo, see Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796, 799 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

Equitable tolling is available only if “extraordinary circumstances beyond a prisoner’s control make it impossible to file a petition on time.” Id. at 799 (quotation marks omitted). We have consistently held that “miscalculation of the limitations period by [petitioner’s] counsel and his negligence in general do not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to *661 warrant equitable tolling.” Frye v. Hickman, 273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001). Because King’s attorney made a good faith effort to file King’s habeas petition but simply miscalculated the filing deadline, his conduct was negligent at worst and does not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient for equitable tolling. And given our consistent proclamations that an attorney’s negligent miscalculation of a filing deadline is insufficient to justify equitable tolling, we reject the argument that such a miscalculation is sufficient when coupled with a client’s requests for diligence. See id.

AFFIRMED.