the Ninth Circuit ‘look[ed] through’ the California Supreme Court’s summary , denial of Williams’ petition for review and examined the California Court of Appeal’s opinion, the last reasoned state-court decision-”). Here, the last reasoned decision is that of the superior court, which denied Hinojosa’s ex post facto claim solely on the ground of improper venue. That determination is not a determination “on the merits.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). So, we are not bound by AEDPA. Nonetheless, if a state court dismisses a federal claim on an independent state procedural ground that is firmly established and regularly followed, we normally will not consider the claim. Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53, 55, 60-61, 130 S.Ct. 612, 175 L.Ed.2d 417 (2009). But the stat 28 Cal.Rptr. 223, 546 P.2d 727 (1976) (<HOLDING>). We will not make the state’s arguments for
holding that a habeas petition filed more than 30 days after the effective date of the real id act cannot be transferred to the court of appeals as a petition for review for lack of jurisdiction holding 1 that the district court properly construed one  1983 claim as a habeas petition but improperly summarily dismissed it and 2 that the district court should have construed another  1983 claim as a habeas petition holding that even if venue was improper the case should have been transferred not dismissed holding that if a modification petition is filed in a county where venue is appropriate it is improper to transfer the venue to another county merely because venue also would have been proper in the other county however once an enforcement proceeding is undertaken in an appropriate venue venue is improper in a different county over a subsequently filed petition to modify the decree which was the subject of the enforcement proceedings holding habeas petition should be transferred not dismissed for improper venue