Hussein Aden Ibrahim v. SCOTT KERNAN, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HUSSEIN ADEN IBRAHIM,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
SCOTT KERNAN, Secretary, California
Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-55381
D.C. No.
3:17-cv-0696-BEN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 13, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and M. WATSON,***
District Judge.
FILED
AUG 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Michael H. Watson, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Petitioner Hussein Ibrahim is a California state inmate appealing the district
court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition as untimely. Under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), a state
prisoner is required to file a federal habeas petition within one year of the date on
which the conviction became final, unless the time is tolled by a timely filed state
petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
Petitioner’s conviction became final in state court on August 30, 2015. A
California state appellate court denied his petition as untimely on December 14,
2016. Thereafter, the California Supreme Court summarily denied his petition on
March 29, 2017. Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition on April 5, 2017.
The district court did not err in dismissing the petition as untimely. The
district court properly “looked through” the California Supreme Court’s summary
denial to the last reasoned state court opinion, which had found the petition
untimely. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 (1991) (“Where there has
been one reasoned state judgment rejecting a federal claim, later unexplained
orders upholding that judgment or rejecting the same claim rest upon the same
ground.”); see also Wilson v. Sellers, 138 S. Ct. 1188, 1194–95 (2018) (affirming
that Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) did not abrogate the Ylst look-
through doctrine). The district court correctly denied the petition.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --