SLAUGHTER v. SANTIAGO et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that Petitioner's Motion for a judgment of default against Respondents for failure to respond to the motion for an evidentiary hearing and for an order for a subpoena duces tecum and a subpoena ad testifica ndum, and to the habeas petition (Docket Entry Nos. 15 , 17 and 25 ), are hereby DENIED; that Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing and for an order for a subpoena duces tecum, and a subpoena ad testificandum,, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature at this time; that the Clerk shall serve a copy of Petitioner's motion (Docket Entry No. 14 ) upon Respondents by regular mail; that Respondents shall file a response and/or opposition to Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing (Docket Entry No. 14 ) by 8/29/2014; that Petitioner shall file a reply to Respondents' opposition by 9/19/2014. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 7/31/2014. (gxh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHARLESSLAUGHTER,~a

UMAR M. ALI-KHAN,

Civil Action No. 13-2383 (MAS)

Petitioner,

v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ANGEL SANTIAGO, et al.,
Respondents.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court by various motions (ECF Nos. 14, 15, 17, and
25) submitted by Petitioner, Charles Slaughter, also known as Umar M. Ali Khan (hereinafter
"Petitioner"), in connection with his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. It appearing that:
1. On April 18, 2013, Petitioner, Charles Slaughter, also known as Umar M. Ali-Khan,
filed a petition prose seeking habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.)
2. On October 24, 2013, this Court issued an Order directing Respondents to answer the
petition. (ECF No. 12.)
3. On December 23, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing, together
with a proposed Order for a subpoena duces tecum and a subpoena ad testificandum to be served
upon Respondents by the U.S. Marshals. (ECF No. 14.)
4. On January 10, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion for a judgment of default against
Respondents for failure to respond to the motion for an evidentiary hearing and the order for a
subpoena duces tecum and a subpoena ad testificandum. (ECF No. 15.)

5.

On February 18, 2014, Petitioner filed another motion for a judgment of default

against Respondents for failure to respond to the motion for an evidentiary hearing and the order
for a subpoena duces tecum and a subpoena ad testificandum. (ECF No. 17.)
6. On May 2, 2014, Petitioner wrote to the Court requesting that his motions be ruled
upon as soon as possible. (ECF No. 19.)
7. In light of Petitioner's May 2, 2014letter, the Court discerned that a summons had not
been issued with the October 24, 2013 Order directing Respondents to answer the habeas
petition. Accordingly, on May 21, 2014, a summons was issued by the Clerk of the Court for
service of the petition and the.October 24, 2013 Order directing Respondents to file an answer to
the petition. (ECF No. 20.)
8. On June 16, 2014, counsel for Respondents requested an additional three months, until
September 20, 2014, to answer the petition and provide the state court record. (ECF No. 24.)
9. On June 20, 2014, Petitioner filed another motion for a judgment of default against
Respondents for failure to respond to the motion for an evidentiary hearing and order for
subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum, as well as failure to respond to the
summons issued on May 21,2014. (ECF No. 25.)
10. On June 30, 2014, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order extending
the time for Respondent to answer the petition, until July 31, 2014. (ECF No. 28.) The Order
did not address Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 14).
11. On July 29, 2014, Respondents filed an answer to the habeas petition, together with a
copy of the relevant state court record. (ECF No. 29.)
12. The Court fmds that Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing and the order for
a subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum (ECF No. 14) were never served on

2

Respondents.

For this reason, Petitioner's motions for a judgment of default against

Respondents for failure ·to respond to the motion for an evidentiary hearing and order fot
subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum (ECF Nos. 15, 17, and 25) are denied.
13.

Further, Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 14) is denied

without prejudice as premature because it was not served on Respondents. The Clerk of the
Court will be directed to serve the motion papers docketed at ECF No. 14 upon Respondents by
regular mail. Respondents shall file a response or opposition to Petitioner's motion no later than
August 29, 2014, and Petitioner shall file a reply thereto no later than September 19, 2014.
THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above,
It is on this

2J sf-

_.:J_

day of July, 2014,

ORDERED that Petitioner's motions for a judgment of default against Respondents for
failure to respond to the motion for an evidentiary hearing and the order for a subpoena duces
tecum and a subpoena ad testificandum, and to the habeas petition (ECF Nos. 15, 17, and 25), are

hereby DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing and for an order for a
subpoena duces tecum and a subpoena ad testificandum (ECF No. 14) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as premature at this time; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of Petitioner's motion (ECF
No. 14) upon Respondents by regular mail; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondents shall file a response and/or opposition to Petitioner's
motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 14) no later than August 29, 2014; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a reply to Respondents opposition no later than
September 19, 2014; and it is further

3

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Order upon Respondents by electronic filing,
and upon Petitioner by regular mail.

4