Alameida

MEMORANDUM **

David Gene Lancaster, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition based on untimeliness. 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 affirm.

Lancaster contends that his § 2254 petition was timely filed on November 8, 1998 because he is entitled to statutory and equitable tolling for the time during which his trial transcripts were lost. We are unpersuaded. Because Lancaster’s convictions became final prior to the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Lancaster’s limitation period ended on April 24, 1997. See Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir.2001).

First, Lancaster argues that his requests to the court to retrieve his trial transcripts should toll the statute of limitations. Although the limitations period is generally tolled during the pendency of a properly filed application for state post-conviction relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2); Nino v. Galaza, 183 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.1999), a motion to obtain transcripts is not an application for state post-conviction or other…