Source: http://la.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180301_0000211.MLA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 17:08:34+00:00

Document:
Before the court is a Motion for “Summary Judgement [sic] of Default” (the “Motion for Default Judgment”) filed by plaintiff, Jacob M. Bell, Sr. (“Plaintiff”). For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Default Judgment be DENIED.
On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Petition of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiff's suit was subsequently transferred to this court, and Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended pleading using the approved form.Plaintiff thereafter filed form Petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a person in State Custody.
No timely response to the Habeas Petition was filed by the April 10, 2017 deadline, and on May 4, 2017 Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Default Judgment. On November 1, 2017, the court ordered the State, through the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections and the Division of Probation and Parole to file, within 14 days, “a full and complete response to that part of Petitioner's application that is directed toward ‘the execution of his sentence and the revocation of his supervised release, ' together with certified copies of all pertinent supporting documentation as set forth in the Court's Orders of April 1, 2016 and March 13 [sic], 2017.” On November 14, 2017, the DOC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his state court remedies and was therefore procedurally barred from proceeding.
“Default judgments are not appropriate in habeas corpus cases.” Lemons v. Collins, 992 F.2d 326, 1993 WL 152278, at * 1 (5th Cir. 1993) (unpublished). See also, Thompson v. United States, Civil Action No. 6:09cv410, 2010 WL 3782028, at * 4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2010) (“[a] default judgment is not a proper remedy when the Government fails to timely respond to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”) (citing Wiggins v. Procunier, 753 F.2d 1318, 1321 (5th Cir.1985); Kelley v. United States, Civil Action No. 9:05cv243; Crim. No. 9:04cr12; 2006 WL 2260012, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug.4, 2006); United States ex rel. Mattox v. Scott, 507 F.2d 919, 924 (7th Cir.1974); Hale v. Lockhart, 903 F.2d 545, 547 (8th Cir.1990); Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir.1990) (“The failure to respond to claims raised in a petition for habeas corpus does not entitle the petitioner to a default judgment.”)). “A habeas petitioner is not entitled to release because of the state's tardiness in responding to the petition.” Lemons, 1993 WL 152278, at * 1 (citing Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 1981); U.S. ex rel. Mattox Scott, 507 F.2d 919, 924 (7th Cir. 1974)). See also, Chapa v. Perez, C.A. No. C-07-207, 2007 WL 2021768, at * 2 (S.D. Tex. May 9, 2007) (“Default judgment is not appropriate in a habeas proceeding because the failure of respondent to file an answer does not entitle petitioner to habeas corpus relief.”). “A default judgment is inappropriate even when the Government inexcusably disregards a district court's orders to respond to a petition.” Thompson, 2010 WL 3782028, at * 4 (citing Bermudez v. Reid, 733 F.2d 18 (2d Cir. 1984)). “To hold otherwise would improperly place the burden of default on the community at large.” Id. (citing United States ex rel. Mattox, 507 F.2d at 924).
Here, although the undersigned agrees that the State failed to timely respond to multiple court orders requiring responsive pleadings, “a default judgment is generally not appropriate in a habeas corpus proceeding because the failure of the respondent to file responsive pleadings does not generally entitle a petitioner to habeas corpus relief.” U.S. v. Holper, Criminal Action No. 08-142, 2011 WL 7096612, at * 2 (M.D. La. Dec. 19, 2011). Moreover, in light of the State's pending Motion for Summary Judgment, to which Plaintiff has responded, it appears this matter will be able to proceed to a determination on the merits. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment be denied.

References: § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.