Pelham

MEMORANDUM **

Marcus Boyce Pelham appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his California residential burglary conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, see Miles v. Prunty, 187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we reverse and remand.

Pelham contends that his petition was improperly dismissed as untimely because the district court incorrectly determined that: (1) his one-year limitation period was not tolled during the time his first federal petition was pending in the district court; and (2) his July 23, 1998 state petition did not constitute a “properly filed” application for the purpose of statutory tolling.

We agree with the district court’s determination that Pelham’s one-year limitation period was not tolled during the pendency of his first federal petition. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 , 121 S.Ct. 2120 , 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001) (concluding that 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2) provides for tolling during state post-conviction proceedings, not federal). The district court’s decision with regard to Pelham’s July 23, 1998 state petition also was correct under the law of our…