Should Petitioner's state collateral review requests be considered as pending to toll the AEDPA 1-year limitations period?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1.Under the AEDPA of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), should Petitioner’s State Nunc Pro Tunc Request be considered as “other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending” in order to statutorily “toll” the 1-yr limitations period, when the state court failed/refused to produce an order on the merits of said Nunc Pro Tunc Request for several years? 2.Under the AEDPA of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), should Petitioner's State Application for a Writ of : Mandamus (MA-2015-549) be considered as “other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending” in order to statutorily “toll” the 1-yr limitations period, when the State court failed/refused to produce an order/adjudication on the merits of his 1‘ state Post-Conviction Application? 3.Under the AEDPA of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), should Petitioner's State Application for a Writ of Mandamus (MA-2015-975) be considered as “other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending” in order to statutorily “toll” the 1-yr limitations period, when the State court failed/refused to mail Petitioner the Order denying Petitioner's application for post-conviction? 4.Under the AEDPA of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), should Petitioner's State Application for a Writ of Mandamus be considered as “other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending” in order to statutorily “toll” the 1-yr limitations period, when the State court failed/ refused to make an adjudication on Petitioner's pending post-conviction application seeking an outof-time post-conviction appeal? 5.Under the AEDPA of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), should Petitioner's State Application for PostConviction Relief (seeking an out-of-time appeal through no fault of Petitioner) be considered as a “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending” in order to statutorily “toll” the 1-yr limitations period, when when, through no fault of petitioner's, petitioner was unable to timely file his post-conviction appeal? 6.Has Petitioner met the (2) criteria set forth in U.S. Supreme Court decisions Holland V. Florida and Pace V. DiGuglielmo to be entitled to “equitable tolling” of the 1-yr limitations period of the AEDPA of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244, where (1)it is clear he “reasonably” pursued his rights diligently in the state courts, and (2) that several rare, uncontrollable and extraordinary circumstances stood in his way & prevented him from timely filing his federal habeas corpus petition. . . i) .f 7