Oscar Thomas Burns v. Brenda Burns

985 F.2d 571 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Oscar Thomas BURNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brenda BURNS, et al., Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-15263. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 27, 1993. * Decided Feb. 2, 1993. Before REINHARDT, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Oscar Burns, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and review the denial de novo. Norris v. Risley, 878 F.2d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm. 3 Burns contends that the district court erred in holding that all of his claims raised in his habeas petitions were procedurally barred. A claim that is rejected by a state court on independent and adequate state procedural grounds is barred from federal habeas review unless the petitioner can establish cause for the procedural bar and prejudice by not having the…