I shall be using disregard it.”). 4 . Rule 8 applies here by virtue of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See Fed. R. Governing Section 2254 Cases 11 ("The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent that they are not inconsistent with these rules, may be applied, when appropriate, to petitions filed under these rules.”). 5 . Respondent relies most heavily upon the following cases: Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir.2001) ("Thus, while the district court has the authority to raise the statute of limitations sua sponte and to dismiss the petition on those grounds, that authority should only be exercised after the court provides the petitioner with adequate notice and an opportunity to respond."); Acosta v. Artuz, 221 F.3d 117, 122 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Kiser v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 329 (5th
holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional holding that the untimely petition in that case tolled the aedpa statute of limitations holding that grandparents standing to bring suit under a custody statute was not a jurisdictional question that the court of appeals could raise on its own motion holding that a district court has the power to raise the aedpa limitations period sua sponte because the defense implicates values beyond the interests of the parties holding that a district court has the authority to raise the aedpa statute of limitations on its own motion