Wright v. Hobbs

Filing 24

ORDER denying Petitioner's 18 19 21 22 Motions for Default Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 9/16/11. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
EDWARD CHARLES WRIGHT
ADC #083302
vs.

PETITIONER

Civil Case No. 5:10CV00159-JMM-JTK

RAY HOBBS
Director, Arkansas Dept of Correction

RESPONDENT
ORDER

Pending are Petitioner's Motions for Default Judgment. (Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 21, 22) He
asserts that he is entitled to relief because Respondent failed to “defend [within] thirty days.”1
(Doc. No. 18, 19, 21) The record reflects that Respondent promptly filed his response within
twenty days of service, see Doc. No. 6. Furthermore, default judgment is disfavored in
habeas cases and may not be available at all. See White v. Hobbs, 2011 WL 2110424 at *1
(E.D. Ark. May 19, 2011) (“Default judgment is an extreme sanction that is disfavored in
habeas cases, and some courts have even held that it is unavailable.”) (citing Lemons v.
O’Sullivan, 54 F.3d 357, 364-65 (7th Cir. 1995); Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th
Cir. 1990); Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 138 (6th Cir. 1970)). Accordingly, Petitioner’s
Motions for Default Judgment, Doc. Nos. 18, 19, 21, 22, are DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 16th day of September, 2011.

__________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

The Court informed Petitioner on March 15, 2011, of his right to reply, within thirty
(30) days, to any argument in Respondent’s response. (Doc. No. 11) He chose not to file a
reply.