Harrell v. Daniels
Filing
21
ORDER DENYING Petitioner's Motions for Default Judgment 19 & 20 signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/7/2011. (Marrujo, C)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
THOMAS JAMES HARRELL,
14
15
16
17
18
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHARLES DANIELS, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________)
1:11-CV-00204 AWI GSA HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
[Doc. #19]
19
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
20
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
21
On June 2, 2011 and June 6, 2011, Petitioner filed motions requesting default judgment for
22
Respondent's alleged failure to comply with court orders.
23
DISCUSSION
24
Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motions for default judgment. Petitioner complains
25
that Respondent has failed to timely comply with the deadlines set by the Court and that Petitioner is
26
therefore entitled to default. The Court rejects this contention. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) provides that
27
the writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless he is “in custody in violation of the
28
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
1
1
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that “the court shall
2
summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” 28
3
U.S.C. § 2243. The failure of the Government to timely comply with the deadlines set by this Court
4
does not relieve Petitioner of his burden of proof.
5
Moreover, the docket reflects that Respondent did in fact timely comply with the deadlines
6
set by the Court. On March 15, 2011, the Court set the deadline for filing a response for sixty (60)
7
days following date of service of the Order. Within the allotted time, Respondent filed a motion for
8
extension of time which this Court granted. As reflected in the docket, Respondent timely filed his
9
answer on May 19, 2011. The Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to default judgment.
10
Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir.1990); see also Bleitner v. Welborn, 15 F.3d 652, 653
11
(7th Cir. 1994) (Respondent’s failure to timely respond to petition does not entitle Petitioner to
12
default.).
13
14
15
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions for default judgment are
DENIED.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated:
0m8i78
June 7, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
