upon in a prior petition, or engages in other conduct that disentitle^] him to the relief he seeks.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 318 n. 34, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). While the government generally bears the burden of pleading abuse of the writ, there is also general agreement that the abuse of the writ may be raised sua sponte. Indeed, in Stanko v. Davis, 617 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir.2010), upon which the majority exclusively relies in holding that Alaimalo could file multiple petitions pursuant to § 2241 without any statutory restraint, the Tenth Circuit sua sponte invoked the abuse of the writ doctrine and dismissed Stanko’s successive habeas corpus petition. Id. at 1270-72. Accord United States v. Talk, 158 F.3d 1064, 1067 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated
holding that the court can raise res judicata sua sponte even on appeal holding that because concerns of finality of criminal judgments judicial economy and orderly administration of justice substantially implicate important interests beyond those of the parties appellate court may raise frady defense sua sponte holding that a court may sua sponte take judicial notice of its docket holding that appellate court may raise issues of default sua sponte where necessary to protect inter alia the finality of federal criminal judgments holding court may raise procedural default sua sponte if doing so will further the interests of judicial efficiency conservation of scarce judicial resources and orderly and prompt administration of justice