Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 26

Heading: Petitioner's Claims are Procedurally Barred

Text: Even if Petitioner were to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), the Court denies his claims from this successive petition as procedurally barred. The California Supreme Court denied Petitioner's claims on February 5, 2004, as untimely and successive citing to In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 509, 855 P.2d 729 (1993) and In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 153, 959 P.2d 311 (1998). (Sixth State Habeas Pet. at 37-54 (claim IV); Answer, Ex. 13.) Respondent argues that Petitioner's claims are procedurally barred. In response, Petitioner fails to raise specific factual allegations that demonstrate the inadequacy of the state procedure, including citation to authority demonstrating inconsistent application of the rule. Bennett, 322 F.3d at 584, 586. Accordingly, this Court also DENIES these claims in the successive petition as procedurally barred.