Opinion
2:11-cv-00955-KJD-GWF
10-12-2011
MILAGROS RAYRAY SURATOS, Petitioner, v. CAROLYN MYLES, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
This action proceeds on a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 brought pro se by petitioner, Milagros Rayray Suratos. Before the Court is an unopposed motion to dismiss the petition (ECF No. 7) on the grounds that it contains unexhausted and procedurally barred claims.
Despite being given notice through the Court's Order regarding the requirements of Klingele v. Eikenberry and Rand v. Rowland, petitioner has not opposed the motion and has not sought additional time from the Court to do so. Local Rules of Practice (LR) Rule 7-2(d) provides that ... "the failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion."
Because, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), the Court is unable to entertain the merits of claims raised in this Court but not raised before the state court's, the motion to dismiss must be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss the Petitioner (ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. The petition is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
__________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE