Opinion ID: 2980034
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State-Related Defaults

Text: A habeas petitioner procedurally defaults when he “fails to obtain consideration of a claim by a state court,” either because he failed to raise the claim before the state court or because a state 2 Muntaser groups these claims in seven issues presented. For ease of reference, we identify each claim individually. 5 procedural rule prevented the state court from reaching the merits of the claim. Seymour v. Walker, 224 F.3d 542, 549-50 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977)). The federal court may not hear the procedurally defaulted claim unless the petitioner shows “cause for the default and prejudice resulting from the default.” Id. at 550. By failing to raise the claims before the state court in his direct appeal or his Rule 26(B) application Muntaser has procedurally defaulted claims (8), (12), and the portion of claim (13) regarding improper vouching. See id. at 550 (procedurally defaulting a claim “not properly presented to or ruled on by the Ohio courts”). Muntaser has also procedurally defaulted claims (4) and (11) by relying on different theories for support than were presented in state court. See Wong v. Money, 142 F.3d 313, 322 (6th Cir. 1998) (presenting a claim before the federal habeas court “on a theory which is separate and distinct” from the theory presented in state court results in procedural default). In addition, claim (1) is procedurally defaulted, because the state refused to consider this issue on the merits due to trial counsel’s failure to object to the instructions at trial. See Awkal v. Mitchell, 613 F.3d 629, 648 (6th Cir. 2010) (recognizing Ohio’s contemporaneous-objection rule as an adequate and independent state ground that bars federal habeas review). Muntaser fails to show cause and prejudice to excuse these defaults. As a result, we may not consider these claims as grounds for habeas relief.