Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01833/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01833-1/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

18cv1833-WQH(MSB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 18cv1833-WQH(MSB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11]

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States District Court 

Judge William Q. Hayes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rules 72.1(d) and 

HC.2 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s Motion for Default 

Judgment be DENIED. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 6, 2018, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, submitted a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [ECF No. 1]. On August 28, 2018, District

Judge William Q. Hayes dismissed the case without prejudice because Petitioner failed 

to satisfy the filing fee requirement [ECF No. 2]. Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in 

Forma Pauperis was granted on October 5, 2018 [ECF Nos. 3, 5]. The same day, 

Magistrate Judge Marc L. Goldman issued an “Order Reopening Case and Setting 

Case 3:18-cv-01833-WQH-MSB Document 12 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv1833-WQH(MSB)

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

Briefing Schedule.” (Order Reopening Case, ECF No. 6). The order directed Respondent 

to file a motion to dismiss or an answer to the Petition no later than December 7, 2018, 

and Petitioner to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss or traverse to matters 

raised in the answer by January 7, 2019. (Id. at 2-3.) On November 7, 2018, the case 

was transferred to Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg [ECF No. 7].

On November 30, 2018, Respondent filed an “Ex Parte Application for Order 

Extending the Time to File a Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” (Ex Parte 

Appl., ECF No. 8.) On December 3, 2018, the Court issued an order granting the

application and extending Respondent’s deadline to file a motion to dismiss or an 

answer until February 6, 2019. (Order, ECF No. 9.) The Court also extended Petitioner’s 

deadline to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss or traverse to matters raised in 

the answer until March 11, 2019. (Id.) On December 8, 2018, Petitioner constructively 

filed a “Notice/Motion for Judgment by Default,” which the Court accepted on 

discrepancy on December 13, 2018 [ECF Nos. 10, 11]. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“The failure to respond to claims raised in a petition for habeas corpus does not 

entitle the petitioner to a default judgment.” Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th 

Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). “[A]n untimely filing by Respondent provides no basis for 

entry of a default judgment in a federal habeas proceedings. Even where a respondent 

is delinquent, the Court is obligated to hear the case on its merits.” Crim v. Benov, No. 

1:10–cv–01600–OWW–JLT HC, 2011 WL 1636867, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011) (citing 

Gordon, 895 F.2d at 612).

III. DISCUSSION

Petitioner Williams moves the Court for “immediate Judgment by default.” (Mot. 

Default, ECF No. 11.) Petitioner contends that good cause exists to grant his motion 

because he has not received Respondent’s response to his Petition by the Court-ordered 

deadline of December 7, 2018. (Id.) Williams asserts that “it appears [R]espondent has 

Case 3:18-cv-01833-WQH-MSB Document 12 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv1833-WQH(MSB)

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

conceded to [the] issues and claims” in the Petition and has not requested to extend the 

deadline to respond to the Petition. (Id.) 

“The failure to respond to claims raised in a petition for habeas corpus does not 

entitle the petitioner to a default judgment.” Gordon, 895 F.2d at 612; see also Crim, 

2011 WL 1636867, at *12 (“Even where a respondent is delinquent, the Court is 

obligated to hear the case on its merits.”). Further, a review of the court docket reflects 

that on November 30, 2018, Respondent moved the Court to continue the deadline to 

respond to the Petition from December 7, 2018, until February 6, 2019. (See Ex Parte 

Appl. 1, ECF No. 8.) Respondent’s request was filed more than one week before the 

deadline and was timely. The Court granted the request and extended Respondent’s 

deadline to file a motion to dismiss or an answer until February 6, 2019. (See Order, ECF 

No. 9.) Respondent therefore did not violate the Court’s order to respond. Accordingly, 

Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment should be denied. See Gordon, 895 F.2d at 

612; see also Evans v. Hartley, No. 1:11–cv–1424–LJO–SKO–HC, 2011 WL 5436286, at *1 

(E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (recommending that petitioner’s motion for default judgment de 

denied, where respondent timely requested and was granted a continuance of the 

deadline to respond to petitioner’s Petition; finding “no inappropriate delay on the part 

of Respondent in responding to the petition or other failure by Respondent to comply 

with the Court’s order to respond.”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:11–

cv–01424–LJO–SKO–HC, 2012 WL 28570, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012). 

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court submits this Report and Recommendation to United States District 

Judge William Q. Hayes under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule HC.2 of the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of California. For the reasons 

outlined above, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Judge issue an Order 

approving and adopting this Report and Recommendation DENYING Petitioner’s Motion 

for Default. 

Case 3:18-cv-01833-WQH-MSB Document 12 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv1833-WQH(MSB)

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

IT IS ORDERED that no later than January 11, 2019, any party to this action may 

file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed with the 

Court and served on all parties no later than January 25, 2019. The parties are advised 

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those 

objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01833-WQH-MSB Document 12 Filed 12/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4