Wright v. Hobbs
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
Civil Case No. 5:10CV00159-JMM-JTK
Director, Arkansas Dept of Correction
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
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
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?