Anderson #062997 v. Ryan et al
ORDER denying 14 Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 11/18/16.(LSP)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Ira Joe Anderson,
No. CV-16-01577-PHX-ROS (ESW)
Charles L Ryan, et al.,
On May 23, 2016, Petitioner Ira Joe Anderson, who is confined in the Arizona
State Prison Complex-Eyman in Florence, Arizona, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court granted Petitioner’s Application to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis and ordered Respondents to answer the Petition, specifically providing
that Respondents “may file an answer limited to relevant affirmative defenses, including
but not limited to, statute of limitations, procedural bar, or non-retroactivity.” (Doc. 5 at
3). Respondents timely filed their Limited Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
(Doc. 13). Petitioner did not file a reply, and the time to do so has passed. The Petition
is deemed submitted for decision.
Pending before the Court is “Petitioner Motions the Court or the Justice or a Judge
to Issue a Default Judgment Order Awarding the Writ and Granting the Relief Sought to
Defendant.” (Doc. 14). Petitioner requests entry of a default judgment because “[t]he
respondents has [sic] neither responded, rebutted, contended nor refutted or shown cause
why the writ should not be granted, and the respondents are now in default of the court’s
responsive pleading” to the three grounds set forth in the Petition for Writ of Habeas
(Id. at 1).
Petitioner argues that the Response (Doc. 13) is a “none [sic]
The Court finds that the Respondents have, in fact, timely responded to the
Petition pursuant to Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District
Court. By Order of the Court (Doc. 5), Respondents were permitted to limit their answer
to affirmative defenses, and they have done so. Should the Court reject the affirmative
defenses set forth in the Limited Answer, it will order the Respondents to file additional
briefing to address the merits of the claims raised by Petitioner. Entry of a default
judgment is not warranted under the circumstances of this case. See Rule 55, Fed. R.
For the reasons set forth herein,
IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s motion (Doc. 14).
Dated this 18th day of November, 2016.
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?