Mohammed Abedi v. RANDY GROUNDS, Warden

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMMED ABEDI,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-18010
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03184-JAM-DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2012 **
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Mohammed Abedi appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as procedurally
defaulted. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

We agree with the district court that the claims raised in Abedi’s section
2254 petition are procedurally defaulted. See Walker v. Martin, 131 S. Ct. 1120,
1124-28 (2011) (holding that California’s In re Robbins, 18 Cal. 4th 770, 780
(1998), rule constitutes an independent and adequate state procedural bar to federal
habeas review, despite discretionary application). Moreover, Abedi has not
demonstrated cause and prejudice to excuse the default, nor that a fundamental
miscarriage of justice will result if his claims are not considered on the merits. See
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750-51 (1991).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --