Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01546/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01546-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have 

consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge 

to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry 

of final judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed 

by the parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on 

October 7, 2013, and on behalf of Respondent on February 19, 2014.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to enter default 

judgment, which was filed on March 6, 2014. 

Petitioner bases his motion on an alleged delay in Respondent’s 

ANTHONY LAWS,

 Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01546-BAM-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(DOC. 18)

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 19 Filed 03/11/14 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

filing a response to the petition, which on January 1, 2014, the 

Court ordered Respondent to accomplish within sixty days. The 

docket reflects that on February 27, 2014, before the due date of 

the response, Respondent duly requested an extension of time within 

which to file a response, and the Court subsequently granted the 

extension. The response is not overdue; it is now due on or about 

April 5, 2014.

However, even if Respondent had been responsible for a minimal 

delay in responding to the petition, the Court would not grant a 

default judgment. It is established that in this proceeding, it is 

the petitioner’s burden to show that he or she is in custody in 

violation of the laws of the United States. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 358 n.3 (2003). Even if Respondent had failed to file 

a timely response, a failure by state officials to comply timely 

with the deadlines set by the Court does not relieve Petitioner of 

the burden of proof or entitle him to entry of a default or a 

default judgment. Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 

1990).

Although Respondent has not responded to this motion, the Court 

exercises its discretion to consider and deny the motion without 

requiring the input of Respondent, and thereby to further economy of 

time and effort for both the Court and the parties. See, Landis v. 

North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992).

///

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 19 Filed 03/11/14 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to enter a default judgment is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 19 Filed 03/11/14 Page 3 of 3