Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01480/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01480-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ralph M. Diaz
Respondent
Richard Anthony Peterson
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD ANTHONY PETERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

RALPH M. DIAZ,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-01480 WBS GGH P

ORDER AND AMENDED FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. The matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c). Pending before the court is petitioner’s 

motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 10.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be applied to habeas proceedings, “to the extent 

that they are not inconsistent with any statutory provisions or these rules[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 

Rule 12. Petitioner has filed a motion for summary judgment, in actuality a motion for entry of 

default, because petitioner believes respondent violated this court’s order on the filing of a motion 

or answer by filing an untimely motion. The motion [for default] is not well taken.

Petitioner filed his federal habeas petition on July 30, 2019. ECF No. 1. The court directed 

respondent to file a response within 60 days from the date of its September 10, 2019 order. ECF 

No. 5. On November 12, 2019, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 9. On November 

Case 2:19-cv-01480-WBS-GGH Document 17 Filed 01/13/20 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

14, 2019, petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment requesting that the court grant 

summary judgment on the pleadings [entry of default] due to respondent’s failure to timely file a 

response to the habeas petition. ECF No. 10. 

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss in accordance with the court’s order as 

November 11th was a federal holiday, thereby making a filing on November 12th timely.

Accordingly, the court will address the merits of the motion to dismiss upon completion of the 

parties’ briefing on the motion. 

On the court’s own motion, petitioner will be provided an additional thirty days from the 

date of this order to file a response to respondent’s motion to dismiss in the form of an opposition 

or statement of non-opposition. Respondent’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within 

fourteen days thereafter. See ECF No. 5.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The December 2, 2019 Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 14) are withdrawn

based on respondent’s objections; and

2. The parties shall brief the merits of the motion to dismiss as set forth above;

IT IS FURTHER HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the motion for summary judgment 

(ECF No. 10) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 

Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within 

fourteen days after service of the objections. 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 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 13, 2020

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01480-WBS-GGH Document 17 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2