Clifton Onunwor v. Ernie Moore, 655 F. App'x 369

Clifton Onunwor was convicted of aggravated murder (2008) and filed a state postconviction petition arguing trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain cell‑phone records, the State withheld exculpatory evidence, and he was actually innocent.
The Ohio Court of Common Pleas denied the postconviction petition without a hearing; the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, stating Onunwor failed to provide trial transcripts required by Ohio Appellate Rule 9(B).
Onunwor then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to investigate/obtain phone records) and seeking discovery about what cell‑phone records the State produced.
The magistrate judge and district court found his ineffective‑assistance claims procedurally defaulted for failing to comply with Rule 9(B); the district court denied discovery and adopted the recommendation, granting a certificate of appealability only on the procedural rulings.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal: it held Ohio Appellate Rule 9(B) is an adequate and independent state ground, and postconviction appellate counsel’s failure to file transcripts cannot serve as cause to excuse the default under Martinez/Trevino principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Onunwor’s ineffective‑assistance claims are procedurally defaulted under Ohio App. R. 9(B)	Onunwor: transcripts were already filed on direct appeal; therefore he did not fail to comply with Rule 9(B)	Warden: Onunwor failed to provide required trial transcripts on postconviction appeal; Ohio courts enforced Rule 9(B)	Held: Defaulted — Rule 9(B) is firmly established and was applied to bar review
Whether postconviction appellate counsel’s failure to file transcripts excuses the default (cause under Martinez/Trevino)	Onunwor: counsel Cunliffe’s omission establishes cause (ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel)	Warden: Martinez/Trevino do not excuse appellate counsel errors; only certain initial‑review collateral counsel failures qualify	Held: No cause — Martinez/Trevino do not extend to errors by counsel on appeals from initial collateral proceedings; cannot excuse default
Whether the case should be remanded for discovery regarding withheld phone records	Onunwor: discovery is needed to develop his Brady/withholding claim	Warden: procedural default bars merits; district court already denied discovery	Held: Not reached — Onunwor lacked a certificate of appealability on discovery issue, so appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider it

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default doctrine and exceptions for cause and prejudice or fundamental miscarriage of justice)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (narrow exception allowing cause where ineffective‑assistance‑of‑trial‑counsel claims are first raised in initial‑review collateral proceedings and there was no or ineffective counsel there)
Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013) (extension of Martinez where state procedural framework makes direct review of ineffective‑assistance claims unlikely)
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (1977) (foundational procedural default principles)
Lundgren v. Mitchell, 440 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2006) (definition of procedural default where state rule prevents merits review)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1980) (Ohio rule placing burden on appellant to provide trial transcript for appellate review)
Atkins v. Holloway, 792 F.3d 654 (6th Cir. 2015) (de novo review of procedural default determinations)