From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Busich v. Wrigley

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 21, 2007
No. CIV-06-0936 ALA HC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2007)

Opinion

No. CIV-06-0936 ALA HC.

December 21, 2007


ORDER


Pending before the court is Petitioner's May 1, 2007 "Request to Enter Default and Set Matter for Evidentiary Hearing. FedRCivPRO, Rule 55" (doc. 20). Therein, Petitioner argues for entry of default on the ground that although the court ordered a response by April 27, 2007, Respondent failed to respond by that date. Although Petitioner's assertion is correct, "[t]he failure to respond to claims raised in a petition for habeas corpus does not entitle the petitioner to a default judgment." Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990). Therefore, Petitioner's request for entry of default is denied.

To the extent that Petitioner also moves for an evidentiary hearing, that request is also denied. Petitioner has provided no explanation as to why an evidentiary hearing is necessary. See Schriro v. Landrigan, 127 S. Ct. 1933, 1940 (2007) ("In deciding whether to grant an evidentiary hearing, a federal court must consider whether such a hearing could enable an applicant to prove the petition's factual allegations, which, if true, would entitle the applicant to federal habeas relief.").

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING Petitioner's "Request to Enter Default and Set Matter for Evidentiary Hearing. FedRCivPRO, Rule 55" (doc. 20).


Summaries of

Busich v. Wrigley

United States District Court, E.D. California
Dec 21, 2007
No. CIV-06-0936 ALA HC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2007)
Case details for

Busich v. Wrigley

Case Details

Full title:NICHOLAS LOUIS BUSICH, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY WRIGLEY, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Dec 21, 2007

Citations

No. CIV-06-0936 ALA HC (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2007)