Chaudhary

MEMORANDUM **

Kailash Chaudhary appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition as untimely filed. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

The district court dismissed the petition as untimely under the one year statute of limitations imposed by the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AED-PA”). See 28” U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Because Chaudhary’s murder conviction was finalized before the AEDPA took effect, he was entitled to a one-year grace period for filing that ended April 24, 1997. Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999).

Relying on Dictado v. Ducharme, 189 F.3d 889 , 892 (9th Cir.1999) (“Dictato J”), withdrawn 244 F.3d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 2001), the district court held that Chau-dhary was not entitled to statutory tolling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d) because Chaudhary’s state habeas petition was procedurally defective. Subsequent to the district court’s decision in this case, the Supreme Court held that state habeas petitions were to be considered “properly filed” under § 2244(d) even though they were procedurally…