Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00424/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00424-3/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

ALFREDO H. CRUZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

WARDEN, AVENAL STATE PRISON, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-CV-00424 LJO NEW (DLB) HC 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

[Doc. #15]

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

[Doc. #14]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On August 22, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion requesting default be entered for Respondent's 

failure to comply with a court order. On August 23, 2007, Respondent filed a request for an

extension of time to file an overdue answer. On that same date, Respondent did in fact file an

answer.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Default Judgment

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

Case 1:07-cv-00424-LJO-GSA Document 21 Filed 08/31/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

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

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. 

II. Motion for Extension of Time

Respondent filed a motion for extension of time to allow the filing of an overdue answer.

Counsel for Respondent states she did not willfully disobey a court order. Rather, the failure to

timely file an answer was due to an oversight on her part in failing to calendar the deadline.

Therefore, she was not aware that the deadline had passed until Petitioner moved for default.

The Court finds that Counsel for Respondent did not intentionally disregard a court order. In

addition, Counsel immediately took remedial action upon learning of the error. Therefore, Counsel’s

omission will be excused and the motion for extension of time will be granted.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for extension of time to

file a late answer is GRANTED nunc pro tunc to August 23, 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 Lawrence J. O’Neill,

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

Case 1:07-cv-00424-LJO-GSA Document 21 Filed 08/31/07 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

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: August 30, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00424-LJO-GSA Document 21 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 3