Opinion ID: 179722
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The procedural-default doctrine

Text: A habeas petitioner procedurally defaults a claim if the petitioner fails to comply with a state procedural rule that the state actually enforces and that constitutes an adequate and independent ground for denying review of a federal constitutional claim. Monzo v. Edwards, 281 F.3d 568, 576 (6th Cir.2002). In order to excuse a procedural default, the petitioner must demonstrate cause for the default and must show that actual prejudice resulted from the alleged constitutional error. Ivory, 509 F.3d at 293 (quoting Monzo, 281 F.3d at 576). The cause factor requires the petitioner to show some objective factor external to the defense [that] impeded [the defense's] efforts to comply with the State's procedural rule. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986). Examples include a showing that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available previously, or some interference by officials. Id. (citation omitted). Regarding the prejudice factor, [t]he habeas petitioner must show not merely that the errors at trial created a possibility of prejudice, but that they worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting his entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions. Id. at 494, 106 S.Ct. 2639 (emphasis in original) (alterations, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).