Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-00057/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-00057-1/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

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

01cv0057

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER BERLIN ROBERTS,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVEN CAMBRA, Jr., Interim Director,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 01cv0057-L(POR)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

Petitioner, Christopher Berlin Roberts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He moves for default based on Respondent’s

alleged untimely service of an opposition to Petitioner’s motion for leave to amend. 

Pursuant to the court’s April 11, 2007 order, Respondent’s opposition to Petitioner’s

motion for leave to amend was due no later than June 11, 2007. On June 8, 2007, Respondent

timely filed the opposition. The proof of service indicated Petitioner was served by mail on the

same date at his address at Calipatria State Prison (“Calipatria”). On June 22, Respondent again

served Petitioner with the same documents at his address at Salinas Valley State Prison (“Salinas

Valley”). Based on Petitioner’s motion for default, it is apparent Petitioner received the second

service but not the first. Petitioner argues Respondent engaged in misconduct by serving him

long after the opposition was filed with the court. The court disagrees. From the docket it

Case 3:01-cv-00057-L-POR Document 30 Filed 10/18/07 Page 1 of 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

2 01cv0057

appears Petitioner was moved from Calipatria to Salinas Valley. He did not file a notice of

change of address as required by local rules. See Civ. Loc. R. 83.11(b). Respondent served

Petitioner at Calipatria, his address of record. Apparently when Respondent realized this was no

longer a good address, he served Petitioner at his new address in Salinas Valley. Accordingly,

the court disagrees that Respondent engaged in any kind of misconduct with regard to the

service of his opposition papers.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion for default is DENIED.

2. Petitioner shall forthwith serve and file a notice of change of address to reflect his

correct address for service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 17, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:01-cv-00057-L-POR Document 30 Filed 10/18/07 Page 2 of 2