McGuigan

MEMORANDUM **

Gerald McGuigan appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition, arguing that the district court erred in determining that his shackling-based ineffective assistance claim is procedurally barred. We have jurisdiction to review his petition under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

The only procedural bar issues in dispute here are (1) whether McGuigan actually violated Oregon state pleading rules and (2) if so, whether the pleading rules provide an adequate ground for denial of his federal claim. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 , 111 S.Ct. 2546 , 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991); Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir.2001).

1. Under Oregon law, grounds for post-conviction relief that are not specifically pleaded are deemed waived. See Bowen v. Johnson, 166 Or.App. 89 , 999 P.2d 1159 (2000); Or.Rev.Stat. § 138.550(3) (“All grounds for relief claimed by petitioner in a [post-conviction] petition ... must be asserted in the original or amended petition, and any grounds not so asserted are deemed waived.... ”); Or.Rev.Stat. § 138.580 (grounds for relief must be “set forth specifically” in the petition). McGuigan first contends that the…

concurring:

I concur in the result.