Opinion ID: 3013505
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Procedural Default Framework

Text: This excuse from the exhaustion requirement does Slutzker no good, however, unless he can avoid the concomitant doctrine of procedural default. See Doctor, 96 F.3d at 683. This doctrine “applies to bar federal habeas when a state court declined to address a prisoner’s federal claims because the prisoner had failed to meet a state procedural requirement.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30 (1991). 6 The raison d’être for the doctrine lies in the fact that a state judgment based on procedural default rests on independent and adequate state grounds. Id. at 730; see also Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 81-82 (1977). In this case, there is no doubt that Slutzker has defaulted on his Brady claims under Pennsylvania law. See supra Part II.B.1. Therefore, this Court may reach the merits of Slutzker’s Brady claims only “if the petitioner makes the standard showing of ‘cause and prejudice’ or establishes a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” Lines v. Larkins, 208 F.3d 153, 166 (3d Cir. 2000); see also Coleman, 501 U.S. at 749-50.7 Slutzker argues that he has established cause and prejudice for his default.