Opinion
No. CIV S-10-2632 GGH P.
April 18, 2011
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned in this habeas matter. See Docket # 9 and # 13.
By order February 16, 2011, petitioner was ordered to show cause, within twenty-one days, why respondent's December 7, 2010, motion to dismiss should not be granted. The twenty-one day period has now expired, and petitioner has not shown cause or otherwise responded to the court's order. In addition, the court has reviewed the motion to dismiss as barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations and has found, on the face of it, that it has merit.
The court has some question as to whether petitioner should be denied tolling for a 66-day interval between the filing of his first state court habeas petition and his second; however, the more than seven-month gap between the denial of the second state court petition and the filing of the third is far more unreasonable. Moreover, even if granted tolling for the entire period that petitioner filed state court petitions, this petition would still be untimely to a significant degree.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent's motion to dismiss, filed on December 7, 2010 (docket # 14), is granted.