Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04226/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04226-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES LEE CRAFT, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

GEORGE STRATTON, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-4226 JSW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

(Docket Nos. 25, 26)

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of

habeas corpus. On January 12, 2005, the Court issued an order to show cause why the

writ should not issue. On July 13, 2005, Respondent filed an answer to the petition, a

memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the petition, and a notice of

lodging of record (docket nos. 19-21). An affidavit of service attached to the answer

attests to the service of those documents on Petitioner by an employee of the Office of the

Attorney General.

Petitioner now moves for entry of a default judgment based on the failure of

Respondent to provide him with a copy of the memorandum of points and authorities and

of all documents filed with the Court in this case. Petitioner references the Court’s order

to show cause (docket no. 4), which ordered Respondent to file with the Court and serve

on Petitioner “a copy of all portions of the state trial record that have been transcribed

previously and that are relevant to determination of the issues presented by the petition.” 

Id. at 3.

Case 3:04-cv-04226-JSW Document 28 Filed 05/14/07 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 2

Granting a default judgment in a habeas case is generally not appropriate. See

Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1494-95 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1994) (district court may not

grant summary judgment solely because no opposition filed); Bleitner v. Welborn, 15

F.3d 652, 653 (7th Cir. 1994) (default judgment disfavored in habeas corpus cases). As

such, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED (docket nos. 25, 26). However, Respondent is

hereby ordered to serve on Petitioner a copy of the memorandum of points and authorities

(docket no. 22) and a copy of the record lodged with the Court within fifteen (15) days of

the date of this order and to file with the Court proof of service on Petitioner. Petitioner

may file and serve a supplemental traverse, if he so chooses, within thirty (30) days of his

receipt of these documents from Respondent. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 14, 2007 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04226-JSW Document 28 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 2