Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06151/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06151-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENZEL WARFIELD, CASE NO. CV-F-03-6151 AWI WMW HC

Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

 DEFAULT JUDGMENT

 [Doc. 35] 

vs.

A. K. SCRIBNER, 

Respondent.

 /

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 22, 2006, the court granted Petitioner’s motion to lift the stay in this case and to file

an amended petition. Petitioner was granted thirty days from the date of service of the order within

which to file an amended petition containing all of his claims, and Respondent was granted thirty days

thereafter to file a response. Petitioner filed his third amended petition on April 24, 2006. 

On June 28, 2006, the court entered an order requiring Respondent to show cause why he had

not filed a response to the third amended petition. Respondent immediately responded to the court’s

order and on July 14, 2006, the court granted an extension of time until August 17, 2006, to file a

response to the amended petition.

Case 1:03-cv-06151-LJO-WMW Document 36 Filed 07/25/06 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

On July 18, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for default judgment, based on Respondent’s failure

to file a response to his amended petition within thirty days of April 24, 2006, as originally ordered by

the court. This court has a liberal policy regarding granting extensions of time. All parties benefit from

this policy, and it helps to promote the underlying policy in the Ninth Circuit of resolving cases on the

merits, rather than on procedural technicalities. Further, contrary to what Petitioner asserts in his

motion, this court has not made the determination that Petitioner is entitled to judgment on the merits

of his petition.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for default judgment is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06151-LJO-WMW Document 36 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 2