Cdcr

MEMORANDUM

John Montalvo appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as second or successive. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, see Wentzell v. Neven, 674 F.3d 1124, 1126 (9th Cir.2012), and we reverse and remand.

Montalvo contends that his habeas petition is not second or successive under section 2244(b) because it is his first challenge to the March 1, 2011, decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings (“the Board”) denying him parole. As an initial matter, we deny as unnecessary Montal-vo’s request to expand the certificate of appealability (“COA”) to address this issue because it is encompassed within the district court’s order granting a COA. See Tillema v. Long, 253 F.3d 494 , 502 n. 11 (9th Cir.2001) (court may consider meaning of language contained in AEDPA’s statute of limitations provisions when the district court certified the question of whether the habeas petition was timely), abrogated in part on other grounds in Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225 , 124 S.Ct. 2441 , 159 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004).

The district court concluded that Mon-talvo’s 2012 habeas petition is second or successive to his 2008…