Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00563/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00563-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. Davey
Respondent
Michael Gaddy
Petitioner

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL GADDY,

Petitioner,

v.

D. DAVEY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00563-DAD-SAB

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

(ECF No. 11)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 30, 2016, the Court received the instant motion, wherein 

Petitioner argues that Respondent has defaulted because he did not submit a response to the 

petition within the time period proscribed in the Court’s order to respond. (ECF No. 11). 

This Court served its order to respond on Respondent electronically on April 28, 2016.

Pursuant to the order to respond, Respondent had to file a response within sixty (60) days of the 

date of service of the order. (ECF No. 4). The sixtieth day fell on June 27, 2016. Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 6(d) provides that when service is accomplished electronically in accordance 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E), “3 days are added after the period would 

otherwise expire under Rule 6(a)” for a party to act. Therefore, adding the three additional days 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), Respondent’s response was due on June 30, 2016. Respondent 

filed a motion to dismiss on June 24, 2016, and therefore, he filed his response in accordance 

Case 1:16-cv-00563-DAD-SAB Document 12 Filed 07/08/16 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

with the Court’s order to response. (ECF No. 10). As Respondent has complied with the 

deadlines set by the Court and filed a motion to dismiss, the Court HEREBY DENIES 

Petitioner’s motion for default.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00563-DAD-SAB Document 12 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 2