Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03007/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03007-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raul Lopez-Cortez
Petitioner
S. Salmonson
Respondent

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL LOPEZ-CORTEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

S. SALMONSON,

Respondent.

No. 2:23-cv-03007-DAD-JDP (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

(Doc. Nos. 25, 27)

Petitioner Raul Lopez-Cortez is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On June 11, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 

recommending that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 25) be denied. (Doc. No. 

27.) Specifically, the magistrate judge found that petitioner’s argument that respondent had failed 

to timely file a response to his petition was unavailing because respondent had timely filed a 

motion to dismiss, which complied with the court’s earlier order for respondent to file a response 

to the pending petition. (Doc Nos. 6 at 2; 27 at 2.) Those findings and recommendations were 

served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Doc. No. 27 at 2.) On June 28, 2024, petitioner 

Case 2:23-cv-03007-DAD-JDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 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

2

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 28.)

Petitioner’s objections primarily object to findings of the magistrate judge that are 

irrelevant to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that petitioner’s motion for default judgment 

be denied. Petitioner’s first objection centers on a series of miscommunications between himself

and his prior counsel that resulted in petitioner withdrawing several filings. (Id. at 2–3.) 

However, this objection does not provide any basis upon which to reject the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation that petitioner’s motion for default judgment be denied. Petitioner also 

separately objects to the magistrate judge’s direction that respondent may file a reply to his 

opposition to respondent’s pending motion to dismiss. (Id. at 3.) He contends that allowing such 

a reply contradicts the magistrate judge’s finding that respondent had already timely filed a 

response to his pending habeas petition. (Id. at 4–5.) However, petitioner misapprehends the 

function of a reply brief: the assigned magistrate judge had found that respondent had timely 

responded to his petition by filing a motion to dismiss, then directed petitioner to file any 

opposition to that motion to dismiss and permitted respondent to file a reply to petitioner’s 

opposition. (Doc. No. 27 at 2.) The reply brief does not function as a responsive pleading to the 

petition. Thus, petitioner’s argument provides no basis upon which to reject the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation. Accordingly, petitioner’s pending motion for default judgment must be 

denied.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly,

1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 11, 2024 (Doc. No. 27) are 

adopted;

2. Petitioner’s motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 25) is denied; and

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:23-cv-03007-DAD-JDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 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

3

3. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-03007-DAD-JDP Document 30 Filed 12/10/24 Page 3 of 3