Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00041/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00041-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATALIN HORVATH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

INS, )

)

)

Respondent. )

 )

 )

 )

1:05-cv-00041-REC-TAG-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT (Doc. 24)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DENIAL

OF RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 25)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REINFORCE

ILLEGAL FILING TIMES (Doc. 26)

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. 29)

Petitioner, currently in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE”) and proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). 

DISCUSSION

On March 29, 2005, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the petition should not

be granted. (Doc. 18). Respondent was ordered to respond within forty-five days of the date of

service of the order, or by May 18, 2005. (Id.). On May 14, 2005, well within the time

prescribed by the Court, Respondent duly filed a motion for extension of time. (Doc. 22). On

May 20, 2005, the Court granted the motion in part, permitting Respondent to answer the Order

to Show Cause by June 8, 2005. (Doc. 23). 

Case 1:05-cv-00041-REC-TAG Document 34 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 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

2

On May 24, 2005, after Respondent’s motion had been granted, Petitioner filed a Motion

for Default Judgment (Doc. 24), erroneously contending that Respondent had failed to respond to

the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Because Respondent timely requested an extension of time,

Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment must be denied. 

Also on May 24, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion requesting denial of Respondent’s

motion for an extension of time to respond to the Order to Show Cause. (Doc. 25). Because the

Court had already granted Respondent’s request for additional time, Petitioner’s motion is denied

as moot.

On May 27, 2005, Petitioner file a Motion to Reinforce Illegal Filing Times (Doc. 26), in

which Petitioner alleged that because Respondent filed the request for extension of time on a

Saturday, Petitioner experienced a delay in receiving the document and responding to it. 

Petitioner contends that Respondent thereby violated Local Rule 5-135 regarding the service of

documents during an action. Local Rule 5-135, subsections (a) and (b), provide inter alia that

documents “required to be served” must contain a proof of service, and that unless “a party

expressly waives service, all copies of all documents submitted to the Court shall be served upon

all parties to the action....” However, there is nothing to indicate that Respondent failed to serve

Petitioner with the motion for extension of time. To the contrary, Petitioner concedes she

received it. Thus, there has been no violation of Local Rule 5-135. Accordingly, Petitioner’s

motion must be denied.

Finally, on June 16, 2005, Petitioner filed a second Motion for Default Judgment,

premised on Respondent’s failure to meet the June 8, 2005. (Doc. 29). Also on June 16, 2005,

the Court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding the imposition of sanctions for Respondent’s

inaction . (Doc. 28). On June 21, 2005, Respondent responded to the Order to Show Cause,

indicating that Respondent’s counsel had attempted to file a timely response electronically, but

that the response had not been successful filed. Respondent apologized for the delay and also

filed a notice seeking transfer of the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005. Contemporaneously with this Order, the Court is

also ordering the parties to file briefs on the issue of transfer pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2005. 

Case 1:05-cv-00041-REC-TAG Document 34 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, because Respondent has answered and shown cause why Respondent did not meet

the June 8, 2005 deadline, Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment is denied.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s Motion for default judgment (Doc. 24), is DENIED;

2. Petitioner’s Motion requesting denial of Respondent’s motion for an extension of time

(Doc. 25) is DENIED as MOOT;

3. Petitioner’s Motion to reinforce illegal filing times (Doc. 26), is DENIED; and,

4. Petitioner’s second Motion for default judgment (Doc. 29), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00041-REC-TAG Document 34 Filed 06/27/05 Page 3 of 3