Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01563/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01563-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS A. GIBBS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

J. E. THOMAS, ) 

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:07-cv—01563-SKO-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. 44) 

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in a

habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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

November 7, 2007, and on behalf of Respondent on June 9, 2010. 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to have

Respondent concede or “forfeit” the petition for delay in filing

a response, which the Court understands to be a motion for

1

Case 1:07-cv-01563-SKO Document 45 Filed 08/12/10 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

default judgment. The motion was filed on August 10, 2010; no

opposition has been filed.

This Court has the inherent power to control its docket and

the disposition of its cases with economy of time and effort for

both the Court and the parties. Landis v. North American Co.,

299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260 (9 Cir. 1992). In light of all the proceedings in this th

case, including the ruling and the materials submitted in

connection with the recent motion for an extension of time, the

Court exercises its discretion to consider Petitioner’s motion

for a default judgment without requiring or considering any

opposition.

Although Respondent has not yet filed a response to the

petition, the Court by order filed and served on August 10, 2010,

granted Respondent an extension of thirty (30) days to file the

response. Thus, the Court has not determined that there has been

a failure to file a timely response. 

Further, the Respondent’s previous filing in January 2008 of

a motion to dismiss instead of an answer was appropriate and was

authorized by the Court’s order directing the filing of a

response. It is established that the filing of a motion to

dismiss is authorized by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases in the District Courts. Rule 4, Advisory Committee

Notes, 1976 Adoption and 2004 Amendments

Finally, in any event, a petitioner is not entitled to a

default judgment where a respondent fails to respond to a

petition for writ of habeas corpus. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)

provides that the writ of habeas shall not extend to a prisoner

2

Case 1:07-cv-01563-SKO Document 45 Filed 08/12/10 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

unless he is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws,

or treaties of the United States. Section 2243 provides that the

Court shall summarily hear and determine the facts and dispose of

the matter as law and justice require. It is established that it

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

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

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 358 n. 3 (2003). A failure by a

respondent to comply timely with the deadlines set by the Court

does not relieve a petitioner of this 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); see also Bleitner v.

Welborn, 15 F.3d 652, 653 (7th Cir. 1994) (no entitlement to

default judgment because of an untimely response); United States

ex rel. Mattox v. Scott, 507 F.2d 919, 924 (7th Cir. 1974) (late

filing of a motion to dismiss did not entitle a petitioner to

entry of default); Bermudez v. Reid, 733 F.2d 18, 21 (2nd Cir.

1984) (late filing of an answer did not justify default

judgment).

Accordingly, pursuant to the foregoing analysis,

Petitioner’s motion for default judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cv-01563-SKO Document 45 Filed 08/12/10 Page 3 of 3