Anderson #062997 v. Ryan et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 14 Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 11/18/16.(LSP)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Ira Joe Anderson, Petitioner, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-16-01577-PHX-ROS (ESW) Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 16 On May 23, 2016, Petitioner Ira Joe Anderson, who is confined in the Arizona 17 State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of 18 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In 19 Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court granted Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in 20 Forma Pauperis and ordered Respondents to answer the Petition, specifically providing 21 that Respondents “may file an answer limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including 22 but not limited to, statute of limitations, procedural bar, or non-retroactivity.” (Doc. 5 at 23 3). Respondents timely filed their Limited Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 24 (Doc. 13). Petitioner did not file a reply, and the time to do so has passed. The Petition 25 is deemed submitted for decision. 26 Pending before the Court is “Petitioner Motions the Court or the Justice or a Judge 27 to Issue a Default Judgment Order Awarding the Writ and Granting the Relief Sought to 28 Defendant.” (Doc. 14). Petitioner requests entry of a default judgment because “[t]he 1 respondents has [sic] neither responded, rebutted, contended nor refutted or shown cause 2 why the writ should not be granted, and the respondents are now in default of the court’s 3 order.” 4 responsive pleading” to the three grounds set forth in the Petition for Writ of Habeas 5 Corpus. (Id.). (Id. at 1). Petitioner argues that the Response (Doc. 13) is a “none [sic] 6 The Court finds that the Respondents have, in fact, timely responded to the 7 Petition pursuant to Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District 8 Court. By Order of the Court (Doc. 5), Respondents were permitted to limit their answer 9 to affirmative defenses, and they have done so. Should the Court reject the affirmative 10 defenses set forth in the Limited Answer, it will order the Respondents to file additional 11 briefing to address the merits of the claims raised by Petitioner. Entry of a default 12 judgment is not warranted under the circumstances of this case. See Rule 55, Fed. R. 13 Civ. P. 14 For the reasons set forth herein, 15 IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s motion (Doc. 14). 16 17 Dated this 18th day of November, 2016. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?