Case ID: f-appx_500/html/0668-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mohammed ABEDI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Randy GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-18010.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 12, 2012.
    Mohammed Abedi, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Michael G. Lagrama, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Mohammed Abedi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as procedurally defaulted. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

We agree with the district court that the claims raised in Abedi’s section 2254 petition are procedurally defaulted. See Walker v. Martin, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 1124-28, 179 L.Ed.2d 62 (2011) (holding that California’s In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770, 780, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 153, 959 P.2d 311 (1998), rule constitutes an independent and adequate state procedural bar to federal habeas review, despite discretionary application). Moreover, Abedi has not demonstrated cause and prejudice to excuse the default, nor that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result if his claims are not considered on the merits. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750-51, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.