Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02161/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02161-2/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

---

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

JAMES L. GARY,

Petitioner,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Respondent.

/

1:09-cv-02161-DLB (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

[Doc. 16]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to

the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (Court Docs. 4, 6.) 

Now pending before the Court is Petitioner’s request for entry of default, filed on March

15, 2010. (Court Doc. 16.) Entry of default is appropriate as to any party against whom a

judgment for affirmative relief is sought that has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided

by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and where that fact is made to appear by affidavit or

otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).

Petitioner argues that Respondent failed to file a timely response to the petition as ordered

by the Court on January 12, 2010. (Court Doc. 10.) Pursuant to the Court’s January 12, 2010

order, Respondent was required to file a response to the petition within sixty days thereafter, i.e.

March 16, 2010. On March 16, 2010, Respondent filed a motion for an extension of 3-days to

file the response, and the response was filed on March 18, 2010. (Court Docs. 17, 18.) In an

1

Case 1:09-cv-02161-DLB Document 25 Filed 03/22/10 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

order issued concurrently herewith, the Court has granted Respondent’s 3-day extension of time

and the response to the petition was therefore timely filed. Accordingly, there is no basis for the

entry of default and Petitioner’s request is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

ah0l4d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-02161-DLB Document 25 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 2