Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02149/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02149-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

Alexandre Pchenitchnikov

Petitioner, 

vs.

Alberto Gonzales, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-2149 PHX-JWS (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 This matter arises on Petitioner’s Motion for the Court to Grant his Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (file stamped December 13, 2005) which the Court construes as a motion for

entry of default. 

Petitioner requests that the Court grant his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus because

Respondent failed to file an Answer to the Petition within the allotted time. On November 14,

2005, the Court ordered that the Clerk of Court serve a copy of the Petition on Respondent and

that Respondent file a Response to Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus within 20

days of service of the Petition. (document # 3) Service was executed on Respondent on

November 28, 2005. (document # 4) Therefore, Respondent's Response is not due until

December 18, 2005. 

On December 8, 2005, Respondent filed a motion for extension of time requesting until

December 13, 2005 to file a Response to the Petition. (document # 6) Respondent either

miscalculated the date upon which its Response was due or was proceeding with extra caution

in this case. Not realizing that Respondent's motion for extension of time was unnecessary,

Case 2:05-cv-02149-JWS Document 9 Filed 12/16/05 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

- 2 -

the Court granted Respondent's motion. Respondent timely filed a Response on December 13,

2005. (document # 6) Accordingly, Petitioner's motion lacks merit because a response has been

filed within the deadline set by the Court. 

 Moreover, federal courts do not favor the use of default judgments to grant habeas relief

without reaching the merits of the claims. See, Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir.

1990); Bleitner v. Welborn, 15 F.3d 652, 653 (7th Cir. 1997); Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d

1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, it is within the district court's discretion to enter default

judgment for petitioner if the government's failure to respond creates excessive delay in the

proceedings. See, Ruiz v. Cady, 660 F.2d 337, 341 (7th Cir.1981). Respondent has filed a timely

response and did not create any delay in this matter.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Motion that the Court Grant his

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (file stamped December 13, 2005) be DENIED.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court=s judgment. The parties shall have

ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific

written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which to file a response to the

objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the

District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-02149-JWS Document 9 Filed 12/16/05 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 -

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will

be considered 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 recommendation. See, Rule 72, Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 15th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-02149-JWS Document 9 Filed 12/16/05 Page 3 of 3