Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01410/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01410-0/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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIMON LEE WILCOX,

Petitioner,

v.

STEVEN MERLAK, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

No. 1:19-cv-01410-LJO-SKO (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

DENY MOTION FOR DEFAULT

[Doc. 11]

[FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On December 26, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for entry of default, or in the alternative, 

a motion for an order to show cause. (Doc. 11.) Petitioner contends that Respondent has failed to 

timely comply with a court order. Petitioner notes that the Court issued an order on October 18, 

2019, directing Respondent to file a responsive pleading within sixty days. (Doc. 4.) Petitioner 

states Respondent has not filed a motion to dismiss or an answer within the allotted time. 

The Court notes, however, that Respondent requested, and the Court granted, 

Respondent’s motion for extension of time on December 23, 2019, which extended the deadline 

to file a responsive pleading to January 17, 2020. (Docs. 9, 10.) The Court finds that Petitioner is 

not entitled to default. Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Bleitner v. 

Welborn, 15 F.3d 652, 653 (7th Cir. 1994). 

Case 1:19-cv-01410-AWI-SKO Document 12 Filed 01/02/20 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

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s motion for default 

judgment be DENIED. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned district judge pursuant to 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice 

for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen (14) days 

after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a 

copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within ten 

(10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. The Court will 

then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01410-AWI-SKO Document 12 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 2