Geotis

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Anthony Steven Geotis appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for possession of marijuana for sale. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a). We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a habeas petition, Wade v. Terhune, 202 F.3d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir. 2000) , and we vacate and remand.

Geotis contends that the district court erred by dismissing his ineffective assistance of counsel claims as being procedurally defaulted. When reviewing a purported procedural default, “federal habeas courts must ascertain for themselves if the petitioner is in custody pursuant to a state court judgment that rests on independent and adequate state grounds.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 736 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); see also Hoffman v. Arave, 236 F.3d 523 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating that habeas courts must be “particularly vigilant in scrutinizing the adequacy of state rules of procedural default which have the effect of barring federal habeas review of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted),…