N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOHNATHON HAM ILTON, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. DER R AL G. ADAM S, W a

rde n, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 10-16495

D.C . No. 1:09-c v-01218-AW I-JLT M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Se nior Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

9, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, PAEZ, a

nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s. Johna thon Ha m ilton c ha lle nge s the dism i ssa l of his fe de ra l ha be a s pe tition a s untim e ly . W e a ffirm . Ham ilton c onc e d e s tha

t 2 8 U.S.C . § 2244(d)(1)(A) re quire d him to file his fe de ra l ha be a s pe t ition within one

y e ar of April 15, 2008, the date on whic h his



# FIL ED JUL 22 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.c onvic tion be c am e fina l. He fa ile d to do so a nd thus invoke d

sta tutory tolling for the p e riod in whic h he sought post-c onvic t ion re vie w be fore the C a l ifornia C ourt of Appe a l a

nd the C a l i fornia

Supre m e C ourt. Se e § 2244(d)(2). Tolling, howe ve r, is only ava ila b le to a prisone r who ha s “prope rly file d ” his pe tition “ in c om plia nc e with thea pplic a ble la ws a nd rule s gove rning filings in tha t sta te . ” Bonne r v . C are y , 425 F.3d 1145, 1148 (9th C ir. 2005) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d), ame nde d by

439 F.3d 993 (9th C ir. 2006). An untim e ly sta te pe t ition is not

“ prope rly file d” an d trigge rs no tolling. Pac e v . DiGuglie lmo , 544 U.S. 408, 414 (2005). B oth the C a lifornia

C ourt of Appe a l a

n d the C a lifornia

Supre m e C ourt sum m arily de nie d Ha

m ilton’ s sta

te ha be a s pe titions. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly inte rpre te d those sum

m ary de nia ls by

“ looking through”

the m to the re a soning of the C a l ifornia

Supe rior C ourt, Ylst v . N unne mak e r , 501 U.S. 797, 803 (1991), whic h ha d he ld tha

t Ham ilton’ s initial sta

te pe tition wa s both untime ly an d m e ritle s s. S

e e also C anne dy v . Adams , 706 F.3d 1148, 1158–59 (9th C ir. 2013) (holding tha

t Ylst ’ s “ look through”

doc trine survive s Harrington v. Ric hte r , 131 S. C t. 770 (2011)). B e c a

use the Supe rior C ourt de nie d Ha m ilton’ s pe t ition both a s untim e l y and on them e rits, tha

t pe t ition wa s not “

prope rly file d.” Bonne r , 425 F.3d at 1148–49; se e also C are y v . Saffold

, 536 U.S. 214, 226 (2002). And 2be c a

use the Supe rior C ourt’ s ruling wa s the la st re a sone d sta te c ourt de c ision, it gove rns our inte rpre t ation of thesubse que n t, sum m ary de c isions of the

C ourt of Appe a l a n d the Supre m e C ourt. Bonne r , 425 F.3d a t 1148 n.13 (a

pply ing Ylst ’ s

“ look through”

doc trine in ne arly

ide ntic a l c irc um sta

nc e s). W e inte rpre t those m ute de nia l s to m e an tha

t the C ourt of Appe a l and the Supre m e C ourt followe d the Supe rior C ourt in holding e a c h of Ha m ilton’ s late r pe t itions untim e ly for the sa m e re a s on a s the initia l one . Ylst , 501 U.S. a t 803 (“ Whe re the re ha s be e n one re a s one d sta

te judgm e nt re

je c ting a fe de ra l c la im , late r une xpla ine d orde rs . . . re je c ting thesa

m e c la im re st upon the

sa m e ground.” ). B e c a use Ham ilton’ s sta

te ha be a s pe titions were untim e ly , the y we re not prope rly file d a nd do not toll the

one -y e ar statute of lim ita tions. Ha m ilton fa ile d to file his fe de ra l ha

be a s pe tition within tha

t one -y e ar window. Thedistric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of tha

t pe tition is thus AFFIR

M ED.

3