Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00672/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00672-0/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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Adem Van Daalen, )

)

 Petitioner, )

) 

v. ) CV 06-672 PHX EHC (VAM)

)

Greg Fizer, et al., ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 )

 Respondents. )

TO THE HONORABLE EARL H. CARROLL, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

Daniel Adem Van Daalen ("petitioner") filed a pro se Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner presents four grounds for relief in the amended

petition. (Doc. 6 at pp. 5-8). On July 10, 2006, in lieu of an

answer, respondents filed a motion for extension of time to file

same. (Doc. 8). That same day, petitioner filed a "Motion for

Entry of Default Order." (Doc. 9). Respondent filed a response

to the "Motion for Entry of Default Order" on July 24, 2006. 

(Doc. 10).

In this motion, petitioner seeks entry of default against

respondents because respondents did not file the required

response to the habeas petition within 40 days of the entry of

the Court's order of May 12, 2006, wherein the Court directed

respondents "to respond within 40 days of the date of service." 

(Doc. 9 at p. 2; Doc. 5 at p. 2) (emphasis added).

Case 2:06-cv-00672-EHC Document 14 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 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

1

In the motion for extension of time, respondents ask that

they have until August 21, 2006, to file an answer. (Doc. 8 at p.

1).

2

Respondents contend that a motion for extension of time was

filed within 40 days of the date of service of the petition. 

They assert service was made on May 30, 2006. This being so,

they contend that pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), they had until

July 9, 2006, to file a response. Because that day fell on a

Sunday, they argue they had until Monday, July 10, 2006, to file

a timely response. On that day, in lieu of a response, they

filed the motion for extension of time.1

 (See Doc. 8). 

Even if respondents' motion for additional time to file an

answer was not timely, granting petitioner's motion for default

is unwarranted. In Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir.

1990), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that "the failure

to respond to claims raised in a petition for habeas corpus does

not entitle the petitioner to a default judgment." To permit

default on such a technical basis, without any assessment as to

the merits of the habeas petition, could result in "[r]eleasing a

properly convicted prisoner or imposing on the state the costs

and uncertainties of retrying him, perhaps many years after the

offense, ..." Bleitner v. Welborn, 15 F.3d 652, 653 (7th Cir.

1994). Allowing entry of default would "be a disproportionate

sanction for the wrong of failing to file a timely motion for an

extension of time." Id. at 653.

The Magistrate Judge believes the motion for extension of

time was timely and should be granted. However, even if the

Case 2:06-cv-00672-EHC Document 14 Filed 08/08/06 Page 2 of 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 3

motion was filed a few days after expiration of the 40-day period

to respond, granting petitioner's motion for entry of default is

unwarranted. Petitioner can demonstrate no prejudice from the

short delay in filing an answer and case law does not support

entry of a default judgment under such circumstances.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that petitioner's "Motion for

Entry of Default Order" (Doc. 9) be denied. 

This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is

immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Any notice of appeal filed pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of

the district court’s order and judgment. The parties shall have

ten (10) days from the date of service of this Report and

Recommendation within which to file specific written objections

with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days

within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to

timely file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right

to de novo consideration of the factual issues and will

constitute a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. 

DATED this 8th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-00672-EHC Document 14 Filed 08/08/06 Page 3 of 3