After Petitioner filed his application and memorandum of law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, and without ordering a response from the State, the District Court sua sponte raised a procedural default defense to Petitioner's grounds for relief.

Did the Third Circuit Court of Appeals err in failing to grant the certificate of appealability where the District Court dismissed Petitioner's habeas application after failing to give Petitioner fair notice of the defense before dismissal?

Petitioner filed appeal from the denial of his first petition for post-conviction relief (PCRA). The PCRA Court informed the appellate court that it did not receive Petitioner's Concise Statement or Error in Petitioner's first PCRA appeal. The appellate court found waiver of all Petitioner's issues. On federal habeas, the District Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals followed suit, finding no cause and prejudice for procedural default of petitioner's PCRA petition and appeal.

Did the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and the District Court, err in finding that Petitioner had not demonstrated cause and prejudice to excuse procedural default where Petitioner provided evidence that he had done all that he could do as an incarcerated individual to comply with the rules of procedure in his first PCRA appeal and where the waiver was no fault of his own?

Petitioner further filed appeal from his second PCRA petition. The PCRA Court found the issues to be untimely, failing to meet any of the excpetions to the statutory limitations. The state appellate court found waiver for failure to meet the timeliness exceptions. On federal habeas, the District Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals found no cause and prejudice for excusing the procedural default.

Did the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the District Court err in finding that Petitioner had not demonstrated cause and prejudice to excuse procedural default caused by (1) ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel for failure to raise and/or litigate the underlying issues in his first PCRA petition; and (2) newly discovered facts that met the timeliness requirements of the PCRA statute?

Did the Third Circuit Court of Appeals err in failing to grant the certificate of appealability