See LaRosa v. Kirkpatrixk, No. 15-CV-07008, 2019 WL 1458252, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) (finding ineffective assistance claims insufficient where the petitioner alleged “defense counsel failed to . . . pursue unspecified defenses[.]”); Lamberti v. United States, No. 95 Civ. 1557, 1998 WL 118172, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 1998) (rejecting Sixth Amendment claim based on failure to investigate or communicate with petitioner as “vague and conclusory.
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973); see also LaRosa v. Kirkpatrixk, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57314, at *21 (E.D.N.Y. March 31, 2019) (“[A] ‘petitioner's unconditional guilty plea waive[s] all claims of ineffective assistance of counsel relating to events prior to the guilty plea that did not affect the voluntariness of his plea.'”) (quoting Vasquez v. Parrott, 397 F.Supp.2d 452, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)).
Petitioner offers no explanation for that discrepancy. See, e.g., LaRosa v. Kirkpatrixk, No. 15-CV-7008, at *12 n.6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019); Banks v. Holbrook, No. EDCV 21-51, 2021 WL 4595769, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Aug., 5, 2021) (rejecting claim that “prison's COVID-19 protocols” prevented petitioner from exhausting claim in state court, since petitioner “was able to file his Petition in [Federal] Court”)
That failure renders the claim unexhausted. See LaRosa v. Kirkpatrixk, No. 15-CV-07008 (JMA), 2019 WL 1458252, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019). The Court exercises its discretion to review the claim, notwithstanding Petitioner's failure to exhaust his state court remedies.