¶2 Schuster failed to properly exhaust his claims before the Idaho state courts. See Lindquist v. Gardner, 770 F.2d 876, 877 (9th Cir.1985) (holding that to exhaust claims, “[a] petitioner must present his claim to the state courts on direct appeal, or through collateral proceedings”). Thus, his claims are procedurally defaulted. See Idaho Code Ann. § 19-4902 (establishing a one year statute of limitations on post-conviction actions brought under the Idaho Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act). Nor has Schuster presented sufficient evidence that either his attorney or the Idaho Supreme Court caused his default. Accordingly, the procedural defaults are not excused, and the district court did not err in dismissing Schuster’s claims with prejudice.
¶3 AFFIRMED.