Moreno
Moreno v. Gonzalez
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Moreno’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition raised seven claims. According to the record before us, Moreno never fairly presented any of these claims to the Arizona Supreme Court.
We must determine whether a rule of state law, which the state courts apply consistently, would necessarily bar Moreno from fairly presenting his claims to the state courts at this date. If so, then absent cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice, federal review of these claims would be *410 barred. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 , 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2565 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); Johnson v. Lewis, 929 F.2d 460, 462-64 (9th Cir.1991); see also Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401 , 410 n. 6, 109 S.Ct. 1211 , 1217 n. 6, 103 L.Ed.2d 435 (1989) (in order to be adequate, state procedural bar must be consistently applied in vast majority of eases). Because this issue raises an important question of state law, we certify this question to the Arizona Supreme Court pursuant to Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-1861 (West 1994) and Ariz. Sup.Ct. R. 27 (West 1986 & Supp.1996). See Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 867 F.2d 1234, 1237-39 (9th Cir.1989).