Opinion
3:21-cv-295-LC-MJF
01-13-2022
KENNETH DEAN KNIGHT, JR., Petitioner, v. RICKY D. DIXON, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MICHAEL J. FRANK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This habeas case, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is before the court on Petitioner's motion for summary judgment based on Respondent's failure to respond to his petition. Doc. 24. Petitioner asserts that Respondent's “procedural default” entitles him to a judgment in his favor. Id. The undersigned concludes that Petitioner's motion should be denied summarily for several reasons.
The District Court referred this case to the undersigned to address preliminary matters and to make recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
First, Petitioner's motion fails to comply with the Local Rules for the Northern District of Florida governing the form of summary judgment motions. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 56.1. Second, even if in proper form, Petitioner's motion provides no basis for summary judgment or default judgment. Respondent timely moved to extend his time to answer, Doc. 21, and this court granted an extension to January 18, 2022. Doc. 22. Third, neither a default judgment, nor a summary judgment, is appropriate due to a respondent's failure to timely respond to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Aziz v. Leferve, 830 F.2d 184, 187 (11th Cir. 1987) (finding that a default judgment is not contemplated in habeas corpus cases); Goodman v. Keohane, 663 F.2d 1044, 1048 n.4 (11th Cir. 1981) (rejecting petitioner's argument that the government's tardiness in responding to his petition entitled him to habeas relief); Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1331, 1134 (5th Cir. 1981) (same).
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that:
1. Petitioner's motion for summary judgment, Doc. 24, be DENIED.
2. This case be returned to the undersigned for further proceedings.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of the report and recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.