MEMORANDUM* Leonard John Hodgson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Hodgson was convicted of rape and oral copulation. He contends the district court erred when it denied his petition on abuse of the writ grounds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. After accepting the district court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous and reviewing its Conclusions of law de novo, Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d 883, 884 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 832, 112 L. Ed. 2d 67, 111 S. Ct. 95 (1990), we affirm. Absent cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of Justice, new claims raised in subsequent habeas petitions are barred as an abuse of the writ. McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 493-94, 113 L. Ed. 2d 517, 111 S. Ct. 1454 (1991). In order to demonstrate cause, petitioner must show that ""some objective factor external to the defense"" prevented petitioner from raising the claim in his prior federal petition. Id. at 493 (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488, 91 L. Ed. 2d 397, 106 S. Ct. 2639 (1986)). In order to meet the fundamental miscarriage of Justice exception, petitioner must supplement his constitutional claim with a colorable showing of factual innocence. Id. at 494.