Indiana Moving's Response as to Why his Motion under 28 USC 2255 Should not be Barred under Rule 9 is an argument that the moving makes in order to prove that his motion should not be barred due to procedural default. Procedural default occurs when a defendant fails to raise an issue in a timely and proper manner before a court, or when a defendant fails to exhaust state remedies before filing a habeas corpus petition. It is a defense that the respondent can raise in order to prevent a court from considering the merits of a habeas corpus petition. The two main types of Indiana Moving's Response as to Why his Motion under 28 USC 2255 Should not be Barred under Rule 9 are equitable and procedural arguments. An equitable argument is based on the principle of fairness and involves the moving demonstrating extraordinary circumstances that prevented him from raising the issue in a timely and proper manner. A procedural argument is based on the moving demonstrating that he did not actually default on the issue or that the default was not due to intentional neglect. In addition, the moving can also argue that the procedural default should be excused due to cause and prejudice. Under this argument, the moving must demonstrate that there was a cause for his failure to raise the issue in a timely and proper manner, and that the prejudice suffered by him was sufficient to warrant relief. The moving can further argue that the failure to raise the issue would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, or that the issue is of such a fundamental constitutional right that it should be heard despite the procedural default.