Handy

MEMORANDUM

Reginald Handy appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we reverse.

Handy contends that he was entitled under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2) to statutory tolling of the period between the California Court of Appeal’s denial of his state habe-as petition and his filing of a state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. Because Handy provided no explanation in his state petition for the seven-month delay, as is required under California law, he is not entitled to statutory tolling. See Chaffer v. Prosper, 592 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam); see also Waldrip v. Hall, 548 F.3d 729, 734-35 (9th Cir.2008).

Handy further contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling based on his reasonable reliance on Dictado v. Ducharme, 244 F.3d 724, 727-28 (9th Cir.2001), overturned by Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 417 , 125 S.Ct. 1807 , 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005). This contention has merit. The record establishes that Handy pursued his rights diligently; had Pace not overturned Dictado , Handy’s federal habeas petition would have been timely. See…