Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01304/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01304-8/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMY MAGEE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-01304 AWI NEW (DLB) HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

[Doc. #33]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 3, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion requesting default for Respondent's alleged failure

to comply with court deadlines. 

DISCUSSION

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for default judgment. Petitioner complains

that Respondent has failed to timely comply with the deadlines set by the Court and that Petitioner is

therefore entitled to default. The Court rejects this contention. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) provides that

the writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless he is “in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that “the court shall

summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” 28

Case 1:06-cv-01304-AWI-GSA Document 36 Filed 07/23/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

U.S.C. § 2243. In Townsend v. Sam, 372 U.S. 293, 312, 83 S.Ct. 745 (1963), the Court said: “State

prisoners are entitled to relief on federal habeas corpus only upon proving that their detention

violates the fundamental liberties of the person, safeguarded against state action by the Federal

Constitution.” The burden to show that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United

States is on Petitioner. The failure of State officials to timely comply with the deadlines set by this

Court does not relieve Petitioner of his burden of proof. Default judgments in habeas corpus

proceedings are not available as a procedure to empty State prisons. Despite any alleged

delinquencies of the State, the Court is obligated to hear the case on the merits. 

In addition, Respondent has not violated any of the deadlines set by the Court. On March 29,

2007, Respondent was directed to file an answer on or before June 29, 2007. Prior to the deadline, on

June 20, 2007, Respondent filed a motion to extend time which the Court granted on July 2, 2007. 

As of the date of this order, the answer is not due until August 8, 2007.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s motion for default

judgment be DENIED. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United

States District Court 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 thirty (30) 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 (9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01304-AWI-GSA Document 36 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2