Tindel

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Bradley Tindel appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition with prejudice on timeliness grounds. We review the district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition on statute of limitations grounds de novo. See Malcom v. Payne, 281 F.3d 951, 955-56 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The question presented is whether the motion Tindel filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking production of transcripts and police reports tolled the statute of limitations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2). We hold that it did not.

*884 Tindel filed his federal habeas petition on November 4, 2004, outside the one-year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(1). Unless tolling applies, his petition is untimely. Tindel is not entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2) because his motion for production of transcripts was not a “properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d)(2). Tindel’s motion did not challenge the “pertinent judgment or claim” — that is, seek review of his conviction or sentence. See Smith…