FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNATHON HAMILTON, No. 10-16495
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01218-AWI-JLT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 9, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, PAEZ, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Johnathon Hamilton challenges the dismissal of his federal habeas petition
as untimely. We affirm.
Hamilton concedes that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) required him to file his
federal habeas petition within one year of April 15, 2008, the date on which his
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
conviction became final. He failed to do so and thus invoked statutory tolling for
the period in which he sought post-conviction review before the California Court
of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. See § 2244(d)(2). Tolling, however,
is only available to a prisoner who has “properly filed” his petition “in compliance
with the applicable laws and rules governing filings in that state.” Bonner v.
Carey, 425 F.3d 1145, 1148 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted),
amended by 439 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2006). An untimely state petition is not
“properly filed” and triggers no tolling. Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 414
(2005).
Both the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court
summarily denied Hamilton’s state habeas petitions. The district court correctly
interpreted those summary denials by “looking through” them to the reasoning of
the California Superior Court, Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 (1991),
which had held that Hamilton’s initial state petition was both untimely and
meritless. See also Cannedy v. Adams, 706 F.3d 1148, 1158–59 (9th Cir. 2013)
(holding that Ylst’s “look through” doctrine survives Harrington v. Richter, 131 S.
Ct. 770 (2011)). Because the Superior Court denied Hamilton’s petition both as
untimely and on the merits, that petition was not “properly filed.” Bonner, 425
F.3d at 1148–49; see also Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 226 (2002). And
2
because the Superior Court’s ruling was the last reasoned state court decision, it
governs our interpretation of the subsequent, summary decisions of the Court of
Appeal and the Supreme Court. Bonner, 425 F.3d at 1148 n.13 (applying Ylst’s
“look through” doctrine in nearly identical circumstances). We interpret those
mute denials to mean that the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court followed the
Superior Court in holding each of Hamilton’s later petitions untimely for the same
reason as the initial one. Ylst, 501 U.S. at 803 (“Where there has been one
reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim, later unexplained orders . . .
rejecting the same claim rest upon the same ground.”).
Because Hamilton’s state habeas petitions were untimely, they were not
properly filed and do not toll the one-year statute of limitations. Hamilton failed to
file his federal habeas petition within that one-year window. The district court’s
dismissal of that petition is thus AFFIRMED.
3