Hinkson v. Copenhaver

Filing 16

ORDER Granting Petitioner's Motion to Supplement Argument 10 ; ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgment 13 ; ORDER Directing the Clerk of the Court to File the Previously Lodged Second Habeas Supplement 11 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/25/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DAVID ROLAND HINKSON,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN PAUL COPENHAVER,
Respondent.

16
17
18
19
20
21

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01571-AWI-JLT
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION
TO SUPPLEMENT ARGUMENT (Doc. 10)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. 13)
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE
COURT TO FILE THE PREVIOUSLY LODGED
SECOND HABEAS SUPPLEMENT (Doc. 11)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 21, 2013, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued Findings and

22

Recommendations to dismiss the petition for lack of habeas jurisdiction. (Doc. 5). On December 31,

23

2013, after receiving an extension of time, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

24

Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 9). The matter was referred back to the United States District

25

Judge assigned to this case and the matter remains pending and will do so until a final decision on the

26

Findings and Recommendations of October 21, 2013 is made.

27

On December 31, 2013, Petitioner also filed a motion for leave to file a second supplement to

28

the petition. (Doc. 10). That proposed supplement was lodged with the Court. (Doc. 11). On March
1

1
2
3

14, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion for entry of default judgment. (Doc. 13).
DISCUSSION
When a Magistrate Judge issues Findings and Recommendations, which serve as a kind of

4

tentative decision, the matter is referred to the District judge for final disposition. During the period

5

after the issuance of the Findings and Recommendations and before final disposition, any motions

6

filed by the parties will remain unaddressed unless the District Judge rejects the Findings and

7

Recommendations and refers the matter back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. At that

8

point, the parties may re-file any motions previously disregarded, if they so desire.

9

Nevertheless, Petitioner’s motion to supplement the petition with additional legal argument

10

related to cumulative error, addresses the Findings and Recommendation which is pending. As to this

11

motion, Petitioner is advised that the Court always considers the effect of cumulative error. Thus,

12

Petitioner’s motion raises unnecessary and redundant arguments. These arguments do not affect or

13

alter the Court’s conclusions set forth in the Findings and Recommendations of October 21, 2013, that

14

the Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition. Despite this, the Court will grant Petitioner’s motion and

15

will direct the Clerk of Court to file the lodged supplement.

16

Regarding the motion for default judgment, Petitioner contends that Respondent has never

17

filed a response to the petition and therefore is in default. (Doc. 13, p. 1). This contention, however,

18

ignores the obvious fact that the Court has never ordered Respondent to file a response to the petition,

19

and, therefore, Respondent is under no obligation or legal constraint to do so. Indeed, as of yet,

20

Respondent has not even entered an appearance in this case. Respondent cannot legally be subject to

21

default when Respondent has not even been required to enter an appearance.

22

Regardless of the foregoing, however, there is simply no legal basis for entry of a default

23

judgment in habeas corpus cases. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) provides that the writ of habeas corpus

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

Townsend v. Sam, 372 U.S. 293, 312 (1963), the Supreme Court stated as follows: “State prisoners are

28

entitled to relief on federal habeas corpus only upon proving that their detention violates the
2

1

fundamental liberties of the person, safeguarded against state action by the Federal Constitution.”

2

Thus, the burden to show that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States is

3

on Petitioner. The failure of State officials to file a timely response does not relieve Petitioner of his

4

burden of proof. Default judgments in habeas corpus proceedings are not available as a

5

procedure to empty State prisons. See, e.g., Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir.1990); see

6

also Bleitner v. Welborn, 15 F.3d 652, 653 (7th Cir. 1994) (respondent’s failure to timely respond to

7

petition does not entitle petitioner to default); United States ex rel. Mattox v. Scott, 507 F.2d 919, 924

8

(7th Cir. 1974)(holding that default judgment is not an appropriate remedy for a state’s failure to

9

answer a habeas corpus petition); Bermudez v. Reid, 733 F.2d 18 (2nd Cir. 1984).

10

The same rationale applies to federal prisoners, such as Petitioner. The Court is unaware of,

11

and Petitioner does not cite, any recognized legal authority for the premise that a District Court has the

12

authority to set aside a federal inmate’s conviction based on another party’s failure to comply with the

13

Court’s orders or deadlines.

14

Petitioner is advised that this Court is one of the busiest federal courts in the United States.

15

Filing frivolous motions such as the instant motion takes valuable staff time away from addressing the

16

merits of long-pending petitions. In the future, Petitioner should confine his filings to motions that

17

have merit and a legitimate legal basis.
ORDER

18
19

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

20

1.

is GRANTED.

21
22

2.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the previously lodged second habeas
supplement (Doc. 11).

23
24

Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a supplemental argument to his petition (Doc. 10),

3.

Petitioner’s motion for entry of default judgment (Doc. 13), is DENIED.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 25, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3