Nguyen

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Tien T. Nguyen appeals pro se the district court’s denial as

Nguyen contends that he is entitled to statutory tolling for the time period between the denial of his first habeas petition in the California Supreme Court, and the filing of his second habeas petition to the California Supreme Court.

We conclude that Nguyen is not entitled to statutory tolling for the gap between the denial of his first petition to the California Supreme Court, and subsequent filing to the California Supreme Court because his second filing commenced a subsequent round of review, and was not a continuation of his first round. King v. Roe, 340 F.3d 821, 821-22 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (finding that under a two-part test, petitioner was not entitled to tolling for the gap between his first and second series of petitions because his second series of petitions was not a continuation of his first full round of review); Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir.2003) (deciding that because petitioner’s first round of collateral review is complete when the state supreme court’s denial becomes final, a petitioner is not entitled to entitled to statutory tolling…