Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01546/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01546-2/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

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have 

consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge 

to conduct all further proceedings in the case, including the entry 

of final judgment, by manifesting their consent in writings signed 

by the parties or their representatives and filed by Petitioner on 

October 7, 2013, and on behalf of Respondent on February 19, 2014.

I. Motion to Enter Default

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to enter 

default judgment, which was filed on May 14, 2014. 

ANTHONY LAWS,

 Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01546-BAM-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(DOC. 23)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITIONER’S 

REQUEST FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE 

FILING OF THE TRAVERSE (DOC. 26)

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 29 Filed 09/11/14 Page 1 of 3
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

Petitioner bases his motion on an alleged delay in Respondent’s 

filing a response to the petition, an obligation initially due to be 

performed by early March 2014. The docket reflects that on February 

27, 2014, before the due date of the response, Respondent duly 

requested an extension of time within which to file a response, and 

the Court subsequently granted the extension. Before the extended 

due date had arrived, Respondent again moved for an extension of

thirty days on April 2, 2014, which was granted on April 15, 2014. 

Respondent subsequently filed the answer on May 14, 2014, within the 

time set by the Court. Thus, Respondent’s answer was not overdue.

However, even if Respondent had been responsible for a minimal 

delay in responding to the petition, the Court would not grant a 

default judgment. It is established that in this proceeding, it is 

the petitioner’s burden to show that he or she is in custody in 

violation of the laws of the United States. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 358 n.3 (2003). Even if Respondent had failed to file 

a timely response, a failure by state officials to comply timely 

with the deadlines set by the Court does not relieve Petitioner of 

the burden of proof or entitle him to entry of a default or a 

default judgment. Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 

1990).

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to enter a default judgment is 

DENIED.

II. Motion for Acknowledgment of Receipt of the Response

On July 23, 2014, Petitioner filed a request that the Court 

acknowledge receipt of his traverse. The request will be dismissed 

as moot because the Court’s docket reflects that the traverse was 

filed on May 27, 2014. 

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 29 Filed 09/11/14 Page 2 of 3
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

III. Disposition

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that

1. Petitioner’s motion to enter default judgment is DENIED; 

and 

2. Petitioner’s request regarding the traverse is DISMISSED as 

moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01546-SKO Document 29 Filed 09/11/14 Page 3 of 3