Ahmed
Ahmed v. Attorney General of California
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Taju Ahmed appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Ahmed seeks to challenge his state jury trial conviction and sentence for one count of first degree murder, with a sentence enhancement for personally using a firearm in the commission of the murder. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.
We granted a certifícate of appealability (“COA”) on the sole issue of whether the district court properly determined that Ahmed’s claims are procedurally defaulted. 1 Based on our de novo review, see La Crosse v. Kernan, 244 F.3d 702, 704 (9th Cir.2001), we conclude that Ahmed has procedurally defaulted his claims.
Federal courts will not review the merits of a § 2254 petition if the petitioner has procedurally defaulted his claims. Id. A petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim if he: 1) has not given the state court an opportunity to act on the claim, 2) is now barred from presenting the claim because of the state’s procedural rules, and 3) is unable to demonstrate cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice. See Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1150-51 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S.…