Whether a federal court may excuse a procedural default of an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim with 'some merit' under Martinez v. Ryan without requiring any further showing of prejudice

QUESTION PRESENTED The procedural-default doctrine bars federal courts from awarding habeas relief for claims “that a state court refused to hear based on an adequate and independent state procedural ground.” Davila v. Davis, 187 S. Ct. 2058, 2062 (2017). Federal courts may excuse a procedural default only if the petitioner “can establish ‘cause’ to excuse the procedural default and demonstrate that he suffered actual prejudice from the alleged error.” Jd. (emphasis added). In Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), the Supreme Court held that petitioners can, in narrow circumstances, establish “cause” by showing that the absence or ineffective performance of counsel caused them to procedurally default an claim that had “some merit.” Id. at 14. This case presents the following question: If a petitioner defaults an _ claim with “some merit,” does Martinez v. Ryan allow a federal court to excuse the procedural default without requiring any further showing of prejudice?