Did the District Court err and violate Vang v. Nevada, 329 F. 3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2003) and Day v. McDonough, 547 US 198, 209-11 (2006) when it sua sponte dismissed the petition on procedural default grounds not raised in Respondent's answer and which were conceded as not appearing on the face of the petition?

2. Even if the District Court's sua sponte consideration of the procedural default issue was within the limits set forth in Vang v. Nevada, 329 F. 3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2003) and Day v. McDonough, 547 US 198, 209-11 (2006), was it an abuse of discretion to do so?

3. Did the the District Court err and violate Vang v. Nevada, 329 F. 3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2003), Day v. McDonough, 547 US 198, 209-11 (2006) and Petitioner's due process rights when it sua sponte dismissed the petition on procedural default grounds not raised in Defendants' answer and which it gave Petitioner no opportunity to address prior to making its decision?

4. Did the District Court err when it failed to make any findings or analysis that the appellate disentitlement doctrine is independent of the federal question before applying it?

5. Did the District Court err when it failed to make any findings or analysis that the appellate disentitlement doctrine is "clear, consistently applied" before applying it?

6. Is the California disentitlement doctrine "clear, consistently applied" when the published case law issued by the same Court has the following differences which are set out in bold in the left-hand column:

Whether a federal district court may sua sponte dismiss a habeas petition on procedural default grounds without providing the petitioner an opportunity to respond, in potential violation of due process