Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01337/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01337-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE LOUIE GOMEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

STUART SHERMAN, Warden,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-1337 EMC (pr)

ORDER

Respondent’s request for an extension of time to file an answer is DENIED because it is not

supported by a declaration from counsel. Docket # 15. See Local Rule 6-3(a). Three days before

Respondent filed the request, the Court issued an order – albeit in a different case, Gonzales v.

Gipson, No. C 13-964 EMC – informing the same Deputy Attorney General who represents

Respondent in this action that a declaration she submitted in support of a request for an extension of

time was not in proper form, and urging her to read 28 U.S.C. § 1746 to be sure that her declarations

comport with it in the future. The denial of the request for an extension of time is without prejudice

to respondent submitted a new request with a declaration in proper form. 

Petitioner’s motion to grant the writ due to respondent’s failure to file an answer by the

deadline is DENIED. Docket # 16. See generally Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir.

1990) (“failure to respond to claims raised in a petition for habeas corpus does not entitle the

petitioner to a default judgment”); Bermudez v. Reid, 733 F.2d 18, 21 (2d Cir. 1984) (“were district

courts to enter default judgments without reaching the merits of the claim, it would be not the

defaulting party but the public at large that would be made to suffer, by bearing either the risk of

Case 3:14-cv-01337-EMC Document 17 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

releasing prisoners that in all likelihood were duly convicted, or the costly process of retrying

them”).

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01337-EMC Document 17 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 2