Anderson

MEMORANDUM **

The district court did not err by concluding that claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Anderson’s Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus are procedurally defaulted. A federal court may not review a state court’s decision on a question of federal law if the decision “rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).

Nevada Revised Statutes §§ 34.810 and 47.040 are “independent” grounds because the Nevada Supreme Court “explicitly invoke[d] the procedural rule[s] as a separate basis for its decision,” Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir.2003), and the state did not make application of the procedural bar depend on an antecedent ruling on federal law. See Park v. California, 202 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir.2000). Contrary to Anderson’s argument, the Nevada Supreme Court’s footnote indicating it had considered all documents filed and that the requested relief was not warranted, did not constitute a decision on the merits of his federal law claims; moreover, even if it did, “[a] state court’s application of a…