MITCHELL v. WILLIAMS, 2:11-cv-01686-JCM-PAL. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20120412c60
Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 11, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge. This is a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in which petitioner, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se. Before the court is respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF #10), which was filed on January 17, 2012. Petitioner has not opposed the motion or responded in any manner whatsoever, despite having received notice from the court of the requirements of Klingele v. Eikenberry and Rand v. Rowland on January 18, 2012 (ECF #12). In the moti
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge. This is a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in which petitioner, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se. Before the court is respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF #10), which was filed on January 17, 2012. Petitioner has not opposed the motion or responded in any manner whatsoever, despite having received notice from the court of the requirements of Klingele v. Eikenberry and Rand v. Rowland on January 18, 2012 (ECF #12). In the motio..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
This is a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which petitioner, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se. Before the court is respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF #10), which was filed on January 17, 2012. Petitioner has not opposed the motion or responded in any manner whatsoever, despite having received notice from the court of the requirements of Klingele v. Eikenberry and Rand v. Rowland on January 18, 2012 (ECF #12).
In the motion to dismiss, respondents contend that the petition must be dismissed with prejudice as untimely (ECF #10).1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Respondents also argue that several claims are procedurally barred on independent and adequate state law grounds. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 730-31 (1991). Pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 7-2(d), petitioner's failure to respond to the motion is a concession on his part that the arguments are valid. Therefore, the motion to dismiss shall be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents' motion to dismiss the petition with prejudice (ECF #10) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and close this case.
FootNotes
1. The court notes that the exhibits provided by respondents appear to demonstrate that the petition is indeed untimely.
Source: Leagle
