April 26, 2013
LEO WALLS, PETITIONER,
ROBERT LEGRAND, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Miranda M. DU United States 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 (dkt. no. 10), which was filed on September 11, 2012. Petitioner received notice from the Court of the requirements of Klingele v. Eikenberry and Rand v. Rowland on September 12, 2012 (dkt. no. 13). On October 5, 2012, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to oppose the motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 14). On October 17, 2012, the Court granted the motion and directed petitioner to file his opposition no later than November 26, 2012 (dkt. no. 15). That order was served on petitioner at his address of record. More than the allotted time has passed, and petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss nor responded to the Court's order in any way.*fn1
In the motion to dismiss, respondents contend that the petition must be dismissed with prejudice as untimely (dkt. no. 10).*fn1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
Respondents also argue that petitioner failed to exhaust available state remedies with respect to one of the two grounds. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 7-2, 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 ORDEREDthat respondents' motion to dismiss the petition with prejudice (dkt. no. 10) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and close this case.