Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01818/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01818-5/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

KENNETH WAYNE HOWARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-01818 OWW NEW (DLB) HC 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SERVE ORDER OF APRIL 20, 2007

ORDER RESETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

[Doc. #16]

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 30, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion requesting default for Respondent's alleged failure

to comply with court orders. 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 U.S.C. § 2243. In Townsend v. Sam, 372 U.S.

Case 1:06-cv-01818-JMD Document 17 Filed 08/23/07 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 Thus, an answer addressing the merits of the first amended petition is due within ninety (90) days of the date of 1

service of this order, or a motion to dismiss within sixty (60) days of the date of service of this order, and so forth.

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

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. Therefore, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to 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) (Respondent’s failure to timely respond to petition does not entitle

Petitioner to default.). 

As to Respondent’s failure to comply with the Court’s order of April 20, 2007, it appears that

the order was not served by the Clerk’s Office on Respondent. Therefore, Respondent should not be

faulted for the alleged failure to comply. The Court apologizes to Petitioner for the delay caused. 

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve the Order of April 20, 2007, on Respondent;

and

2) The briefing schedule set forth in the Order of April 20, 2007, is RESET as of the date of

service of this Order.

1

RECOMMENDATION

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

judgment be DENIED. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, 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 1:06-cv-01818-JMD Document 17 Filed 08/23/07 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 20, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01818-JMD Document 17 Filed 08/23/07 Page 3 of 3