Reed

MEMORANDUM *

Robert Reed appeals the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Reed argues that the district court erred when it raised the procedural default issue sua sponte and dismissed Grounds One and Two with prejudice. This argument is without merit. A habeas court may raise procedural default sua sponte “if the petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies and the court to which the petitioner would be required to present his claims in order to meet the exhaustion requirement would now find the claims proeedurally barred.” Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 , 735 n. 1, 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). We have encouraged district courts to “raise procedural default sua sponte if doing so furthers [the interests of comity, federalism, and judicial efficiency].” Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir.1998). The district court properly raised that issue here. As the court noted, the Nevada state courts previously dismissed one of Reed’s petitions on timeliness grounds, and Reed failed “to establish ‘cause’ for the default in either the state court or this court.” Thus, raising procedural default promoted the interests identified in Boyd…