Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-4932.
February 1, 2005
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Document #10) based upon Respondents' failure to file a motion for extension of time in which to file a timely answer.1 Petitioner requests that this court grant his motion for summary judgment, "dismiss [the] case in [P]etitioner's favor" and presumably, strike Respondents' untimely answer. See Pet'r Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. Upon review of the record, I conclude that Respondents' failure to file a timely motion for an extension of time is a harmless technical violation and that Petitioner's request for relief is a disproportionate sanction. Furthermore, at this time, Respondents have complied fully with their obligation to answer under Rule 4 of the rules governing petitions for habeas corpus. Consequently, petitioner's motion will be denied. See, e.g., Saunders v. Taylor, 1997 WL 129347, at *1 n. 1 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 1997) (motion for default judgment denied because default is unavailable in habeas corpus proceedings and 2 because respondents fully complied with their obligation to answer habeas petition) (citing Lemons v. O'Sullivan, 54 F.3d 357, 364-65 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 528 (1995); Goodman v. Keohane, 663 F.2d 1044, 1047 n. 4 (11th Cir. 1981)).
An appropriate order follows.