Davis (ID 06598) v. Schnurr

Filing 37

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's motion for entry of judgment (Doc. 36 ) is denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 05/10/22.Mailed to pro se party Anthony Leroy Davis by regular mail. (smnd)

Download PDF
Case 5:20-cv-03269-SAC Document 37 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ANTHONY LEROY DAVIS, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 20-3269-SAC DAN SCHNURR, Respondent. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on a document Petitioner has filed entitled “Judgment.” (Doc. 36.) Since Petitioner proceeds pro se, the Court will liberally construe Petitioner’s filing as a motion for entry of judgment, which the Court will deny. The proposed “Judgment” inaccurately states that Respondent (improperly referred to as Defendant) acted in direct contempt of court and it purports to award Petitioner $4,000 even though monetary relief is not available in a habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent’s answer and return is due June 6, 2022, and the Court has advised Respondent that no further extensions of time will be granted. After Respondent files and serves the answer and return, Petitioner will have the opportunity to file a traverse responding to the answer and return. In addition to the deficiencies in the proposed judgment noted above, Petitioner’s request for entry of judgment is premature. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for entry of judgment (Doc. 36) is denied. Case 5:20-cv-03269-SAC Document 37 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 10th day of May, 2022, at Topeka, Kansas. S/ Sam A. Crow SAM A. CROW U.S. Senior District Judge

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?