BEY v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 16-cv-5605 (NLH). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
Number: infdco20180111c73
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN , District Judge . IT APPEARING THAT: 1. On November 8, 2017, the Court issued an Opinion outlining the untimeliness of Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, 1 and an Order directing the Petitioner to show cause within thirty (30) days why the Amended Petition should not be dismissed as untimely. See ECF Nos. 9 and 10. 2. The Order provided Petitioner with notice that the Court may dismiss the Amended Pe
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION NOEL L. HILLMAN , District Judge . IT APPEARING THAT: 1. On November 8, 2017, the Court issued an Opinion outlining the untimeliness of Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, 1 and an Order directing the Petitioner to show cause within thirty (30) days why the Amended Petition should not be dismissed as untimely. See ECF Nos. 9 and 10. 2. The Order provided Petitioner with notice that the Court may dismiss the Amended Pet..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.
IT APPEARING THAT:
1. On November 8, 2017, the Court issued an Opinion outlining the untimeliness of Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,1 and an Order directing the Petitioner to show cause within thirty (30) days why the Amended Petition should not be dismissed as untimely. See ECF Nos. 9 and 10.
2. The Order provided Petitioner with notice that the Court may dismiss the Amended Petition with prejudice and without further notice if Petitioner failed to respond to the Order. See ECF No. 10, ¶ 4.
3. Petitioner's time for responding to the Order to show cause expired on December 8, 2017.
4. As such, the Amended Petition will be dismissed as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).
An appropriate order follows.
FootNotes
1. In the Opinion, the Court noted that Petitioner's judgment of conviction became final for the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) on July 28, 2003, ECF No. 9 at 6-7, and that the initial Petition was not filed until September 12, 2016, ECF No. 9 at 2.
Source: Leagle
