Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

HILFORD v. McDANIELS, 3:11-cv-00228-ECR-RAM. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20120229b86 Visitors: 3
Filed: Feb. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 27, 2012
Summary: ORDER EDWARD C. REED, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on respondents' motion to dismiss. Petitioner has not opposed the motion, as he previously failed to respond to the Court's order to show cause. See ECF No. 11. The motion to dismiss is based on the argument that petitioner failed to properly exhaust a part of the single remaining claim raised in the petition. The Court can only conclude that petitioner has abandoned these proceedings and, pursuant to LR 7-2(b) and Rose v
More

ORDER

EDWARD C. REED, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on respondents' motion to dismiss. Petitioner has not opposed the motion, as he previously failed to respond to the Court's order to show cause. See ECF No. 11. The motion to dismiss is based on the argument that petitioner failed to properly exhaust a part of the single remaining claim raised in the petition. The Court can only conclude that petitioner has abandoned these proceedings and, pursuant to LR 7-2(b) and Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982), will grant the motion to dismiss the petition.

Moreover, no certificate of appealability shall issue where petitioner has failed to raise a claim that's merit would be debatable among reasonable jurists. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003), Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 1211) is GRANTED. The petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no Certificate of Appelability shall issue. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer