Darcuiel v. Federal Bureau of Prisons Atwater

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING Motion for Liberal Construction 13 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/26/15. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HAAMID DARCUIEL,

12
13
14
15
16

Petitioner,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISON
ATWATER,
Respondent.

) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01664-JLT
)
) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
) FOR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION (Doc. 13)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

19

28 U.S.C. § 2241. He filed his filed on October 24, 2014. (Doc. 1). On November 6, 2014, the Court

20

ordered Respondent to file a response to the petition within sixty days. (Doc. 5). Within that initial

21

sixty-day period, Respondent requested a thirty-day extension that was granted on January 13, 2015.

22

(Docs. 11; 12). Because the first day of that thirty-day period was a Saturday and because the first

23

Monday was a federal holiday, the Clerk of the Court correctly calculated that the response was due on

24

February 17, 2015. Respondent timely filed his response on that date. (Doc. 14).

25

On January 23, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant motion, challenging Respondent’s purported

26

failure to timely file the response and asking therefore for habeas relief. (Doc. 13). As discussed

27

above, Respondent’s response was timely filed. Thus, no sanctions are warranted. However, even if

28

the response was untimely, the sanction Petitioner seeks, i.e., granting habeas relief, is not within the
1

1
2

Court’s habeas jurisdiction.
Quite simply, there is no legal basis whatsoever for entry of a default judgment in habeas

3

corpus cases based upon a violation of a court-imposed deadline or any other reason. Title 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 2241(c)(3) provides that the writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless he is “in

5

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243

6

provides that “the court shall summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law

7

and justice require.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. In Townsend v. Sam, 372 U.S. 293, 312 (1963), the Supreme

8

Court stated as follows: “State prisoners are entitled to relief on federal habeas corpus only upon

9

proving that their detention violates the fundamental liberties of the person, safeguarded against state

10
11

action by the Federal Constitution.”
Thus, the burden to show that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United

12

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

13

Petitioner of his burden of proof. Default judgments in habeas corpus proceedings are not

14

available as a procedure to empty State prisons. See, e.g., Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th

15

Cir.1990); see also Bleitner v. Welborn, 15 F.3d 652, 653 (7th Cir. 1994) (respondent’s failure to

16

timely respond to petition does not entitle petitioner to default); United States ex rel. Mattox v. Scott,

17

507 F.2d 919, 924 (7th Cir. 1974)(holding that default judgment is not an appropriate remedy for a

18

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

19

ORDER

20
21

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner’s motion for liberal construction
(Doc. 13), is DENIED.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 26, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2