Kevin Bartholomew v. J. Haviland

MEMORANDUM

Kevin Bartholomew appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed the petition as procedurally defaulted because the state court’s dismissal rested on an adequate and independent California state law ground. We affirm.

Generally, a federal court will not consider on habeas review a claim that the state court resolved on adequate and independent state procedural grounds. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 262 , 109 S.Ct. 1038 , 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989). The state procedural rule must be well-established and consistently applied. See Ford v. Georgia, 498 U.S. 411, 423-24 , 111 S.Ct. 850 , 112 L.Ed.2d 935 (1991). Here, because the California Supreme Court summarily affirmed the California Court of Appeal’s ruling, this court looks to the California Court of Appeal’s reasoning to determine whether the claims are procedurally barred. See Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 803 , 111 S.Ct. 2590 , 115 L.Ed.2d 706 (1991).

The California Court of Appeal did not reach the merits of Bartholomew’s due process claim because he had…