until the day after California Supreme Court’s denial of Chavis’s habeas petition became final on May 29, 1998. See Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 814 (9th Cir.2002) (noting that the California Rules of Court provide that a California Supreme Court judgment becomes final thirty days after it is issued and holding that the federal statute begins running the day after the state judgment becomes final). The statute was not tolled during the interval between the first and second rounds of Chavis’s state petitions. See Biggs v. Duncan, 339 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir.2003). Nor was it tolled when Chavis submitted a petition on December 15, 1998 that was deemed “not filed” because Chav-is did not use the proper form. See Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000) (<HOLDING>) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)); see also
recognizing that federal habeas statutes require petitioner to be in custody when petition filed holding that a state habeas petition is  properly filed when its delivery and acceptance are in compliance with the applicable laws and rules governing filings holding that consideration of a claim in a petition for habeas corpus can be barred by failure to comply with state procedural rules holding that a california habeas petition is timely if filed within a reasonable time holding that a second or subsequent state petition for postconviction relief filed according to the procedural rules of the state constitutes a properly filed application  without regard to the merits of the petition