Condon v. People Of California

Filing 40

ORDER DENYING Petitioner's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment; ORDER DENYING Petitioner's Motion in Opposition of Request for Relief from Default signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/18/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

JULIE A. CONDON,
Petitioner,

8
9

v.

10
11
12

KIMBERLY HUGHES, Warden,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00792 GSA HC
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION IN OPPOSITION OF REQUEST
FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT
[Doc. #39]

Respondent.

13
14

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

15

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. She has consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge pursuant

16

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

17

On August 8, 2014, Respondent filed a motion for relief from default and for an extension of

18

time to file her response. On August 15, 2014, Respondent filed her answer. On August 18, 2014, the

19

Court granted Respondent’s second motion for extension of time to file a response to Petitioner’s

20

petition for writ of habeas corpus. On August 28, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion in opposition of

21

Respondent’s request for relief from default, and a motion for default for Respondent's failure to

22

comply with court orders.

23
24

DISCUSSION
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for default judgment and motion in opposition

25

of Respondent’s request for relief from default. Petitioner complains that Respondent has failed to

26

timely comply with the deadlines set by the Court and that Petitioner is therefore entitled to default.

27

The Court rejects this contention. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) provides that the writ of habeas corpus shall

28

not extend to a prisoner unless he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
1

1

the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that “the court shall summarily hear and determine the

2

facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. In Townsend v. Sam,

3

372 U.S. 293, 312, 83 S.Ct. 745 (1963), the Court said: “State prisoners are entitled to relief on federal

4

habeas corpus only upon proving that their detention violates the fundamental liberties of the person,

5

safeguarded against state action by the Federal Constitution.” The burden to show that he is in

6

custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States is on Petitioner. The failure of State

7

officials to timely comply with the deadlines set by this Court does not relieve Petitioner of his burden

8

of proof. Default judgments in habeas corpus proceedings are not available as a procedure to empty

9

State prisons. Therefore, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to default judgment.

10

Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir.1990); see also Bleitner v. Welborn, 15 F.3d 652, 653

11

(7th Cir. 1994) (Respondent’s failure to timely respond to petition does not entitle Petitioner to

12

default.).

13

Moreover, the docket reflects that Petitioner’s motions are moot. On August 18, 2014, the

14

Court granted Respondent to and including August 18, 2014 to file her response to Petitioner’s petition

15

for writ of habeas corpus. As reflected in the docket, Respondent filed her answer on August 15,

16

2014. Therefore, Petitioner’s motions will be denied.
ORDER

17
18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

19

(1) Petitioner’s motion for default judgment is DENIED; and

20

(2) Petitioner’s motion in opposition of request for relief from default is DENIED.

21
22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 18, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3