Halloran

MEMORANDUM

Peter Halloran, a Hawaii state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reconsider the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and 20-year sentence for attempted sexual assault.

Halloran claims that he should be granted federal habeas relief based on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because he is actually innocent.

A § 2254 habeas petitioner must alert the state courts that he is asserting a federal claim in order to fairly present the legal basis of the claim. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-78 , 92 S.Ct. 509 , 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971); Lyons v. Crawford, 232 F.3d 666, 668 (9th Cir.2000), as modified by 247 F.3d 904 (9th Cir.2001). In Halloran’s motion for a new trial in Hawaii trial court, he failed to cite any federal cases or any specific federal constitutional provision. In his direct appeals and in post-conviction court, he failed to alert the courts to a constitutional claim of actual innocence by failing to cite to relevant federal cases or a specific federal constitutional provision.

An implied procedural bar occurs when the petitioner has failed to fairly present his…