McCauley v. Winn

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 . It is further ordered substituting J.T. Shartle, Warden as Respondent for Louis W. Winn, Jr.. Petitioner's Motion to Find Respondent in Default (Doc. 10 ) is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 2/22/16. (KAH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Gregory McCauley,

No. CV-15-00045-TUC-RCC
Petitioner,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Louis Winn,

13

Respondent.

14
15
16

Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Gregory McCauley’s Motion to

17

Find Respondent in Default [Judgement] Pursuant to Rule 55(a) Fed. R. Civ. P. (Doc.

18

10), Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

19

regarding this motion (Doc. 12), Petitioner’s objections to the R&R (Doc. 13) and

20

Respondent’s Response to these objections (Doc. 14). For the following reasons, this

21

Court will adopt the findings and conclusions of R & R and deny Petitioner’s Motion for

22

Default (Doc. 10).

23

I. Background

24

Pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, this matter

25

was referred to Magistrate Judge Macdonald for Report and Recommendation. Together

26

with his Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Habeas Petition, Petitioner

27

moved for the Court to find Respondent in default. Doc. 10. On January 14, 2016

28

Magistrate Judge Macdonald recommended this Court (1) substitute J.T. Shartle as

1

respondent in place of Louis W. Winn Jr. and (2) deny Petitioner’s Motion to Find

2

Respondent in Default (Doc. 10). Doc. 12 at 2:23-27. Petitioner filed timely objections to

3

Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s R&R (Doc. 13), to which Respondent filed a Response

4

(Doc. 14).

5

II. Legal Standard

6

The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72

7

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may

8

“accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or

9

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28

10

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

11

The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s order unless his factual findings

12

are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. §

13

636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge’s decision…is entitled to great deference by the

14

district court.” U.S. v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001). Where the

15

parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo

16

determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §

17

636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

18

III. Issues Presented

19

A. Substitution of Respondent J.T. Shartle as Respondent

20

As an initial matter, Magistrate Judge Macdonald took judicial notice that the

21

listed Respondent Louis W. Winn, Jr. is no longer the warden of United States

22

Penitentiary–Tucson (“USP–Tucson”) and recommended that the new Warden of USP–

23

Tucson, J. T. Shartle, be substituted as Respondent in place of Winn. This Court finds

24

Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s findings on this issue to be thorough and well-reasoned,

25

and, there being no objection, adopts the recommendation that J.T. Shartle be substituted

26

as Respondent for Louis W. Winn.

27

B. Default Judgment

28

Petitioner seeks default judgment because Respondent’s Return and Answer to his

-2-

1

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Dismiss [were] allegedly untimely.

2

Doc. 10.

3

In considering this issue Magistrate Judge Macdonald reviewed the Order

4

requiring Respondent to answer the Petition (Doc. 6), the certified mail receipt

5

documenting the date that Order was served on Respondent (Doc. 7), and the date

6

Respondent filed his Answer (Doc. 9). Magistrate Judge MacDonald concluded that

7

Respondent’s April 1, 2015 Answer was timely based upon the language of the March 9,

8

2015 Order (directing Respondent to answer the Petition within 20 days of the date of

9

service) and a 20 day date calculation (commencing on March, 12, 2015, the date of

10

service on Respondent, as memorialized in the certified mail receipt).

11

Petitioner objects that Magistrate Judge MacDonald has misread the language in

12

the Court’s March 9, 2015. Petitioner is incorrect. The March 9, 2015 Order does state:

13

“Respondent Louis Winn must answer the Petition within 20 days of the date of service.”

14

Doc. 6 at 3:9-10. Moreover, Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s date calculation is accurate

15

and Respondent’s April 1, 2015 Answer was timely.

16

Petitioner also objects that the Magistrate Judge’s warning regarding Local Rule

17

7.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply and that he may seek new

18

relief in a reply memorandum. This objection is, however, moot as the Magistrate Judge

19

considered and addressed Respondent’s new, requested relief in the R&R at issue.

20

Accordingly,

21

…

22

…

23

…

24

…

25
26

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s Report and

27

Recommendation (Doc. 12) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of

28

fact and conclusions of law by this Court.

-3-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED SUBSTITUTING J.T. Shartle, Warden as Respondent

2

for Louis W. Winn, Jr. pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

3

and Rule 43(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; and

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner’s Motion to Find Respondent in Default (Doc.

5

10) is denied.

6

Dated this 22nd day of February, 2016.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-