Floyd v. Houston

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Objections (filing nos. 14 and 19 ) and Motion for Default (filing no. 20 ) are denied in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. By February 21, 2014, Respondent shall show good cause or excusable neglect for his failure to comply with this courts orders. By February 21, 2014, Respondent shall file an answer and initial brief. Respondents failure to comply with this Memorandum and Order could result in sanctions, including the potential re lease of Petitioner. ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 2/21/2014: check for Respondent's showing of good cause and excusable neglect, Respondent's answer, and Respondent's initial brief). Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WILLIAM C. FLOYD JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT P. HOUSTON,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:13CV195

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Objections (filing nos. 14 and 19)
and his Motion for Default (filing no. 20).
I. BACKGROUND
On July 16, 2013, the court conducted an initial review and set deadlines for
the progression of this case. (Filing No. 6.) Thereafter, the court granted Respondent
an extension of time to file state court records (filing no. 8), and two extensions of
time to file an answer and initial brief (filing nos. 16 and 18). With the extensions,
Respondent’s answer and initial brief were due on December 6, 2013. (See Filing No.
18.) Respondent has failed to file an answer or initial brief by the court’s deadline.
(See Docket Sheet.)
II. PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS & MOTION FOR DEFAULT
On October 3, 2013, Petitioner filed an Objection regarding Respondent’s
failure to file an answer and failure to provide him with material listed on
Respondent’s motion for enlargement of time. (Filing No. 14.) Because the court
extended Respondent’s time to file an answer after Petitioner filed this first Objection
(see filing nos. 16 and 18), Petitioner’s first Objection is denied.

On December 13, 2013, Petitioner filed an Objection to Respondent’s second
and third requests for additional time to file an answer. (Filing No. 19.) However,
by the time this Objection was filed the court had already granted Respondent’s
requests. (See Filing Nos. 16 and 18.) Accordingly, Petitioner’s second Objection
is denied as moot.
On January 9, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for Default Judgment. (Filing
No. 20.) In this Motion, Petitioner argues he is entitled to default judgment because
Respondent failed to file an answer by the court’s December 6, 2013, deadline. (Id.)
Petitioner’s Motion has merit; Respondent has not filed an answer or initial brief.
(See Docket Sheet.) However, the court will not enter default judgment at this time.
Rather, the court will order Respondent to show good cause or excusable neglect for
his failure to comply with this court’s orders. The court will also require Respondent
to file his answer and initial brief. The court warns Respondent that his failure to
comply with this Memorandum and Order could result in sanctions, including the
potential release of Petitioner. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Petitioner’s Objections (filing nos. 14 and 19) and Motion for Default
(filing no. 20) are denied in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.
2.
By February 21, 2014, Respondent shall show good cause or excusable
neglect for his failure to comply with this court’s orders.
3.

By February 21, 2014, Respondent shall file an answer and initial brief.

4.
Respondent’s failure to comply with this Memorandum and Order could
result in sanctions, including the potential release of Petitioner.

2

5.
The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline in this case using the following text: February 21, 2014, check for
Respondent’s showing of good cause and excusable neglect, Respondent’s answer,
and Respondent’s initial brief.
DATED this 27th day of January, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
3