United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
D. DICK, CHIEF JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on two Motions for Default and
Summary Judgmentfiled by ihepro sc Petitioner,
Hennessy Christof. In Petitioner's Motions, he prays for
judgment in his favor for the sole reason that the State of
Louisiana failed to file a timely response to
Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner has also filed an Objection to the Magistrate
Judge's Order. which provided Respondent with an
opportunity to comply with the Court's earlier
Order requiring an answer and memorandum of
matter arises from a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed
by Petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on February
9, 2018. After the filing of the Petition and
pursuant to Order dated March 29, 2018, this Court directed
the State of Louisiana to file an answer and memorandum of
authorities, along with copies of all briefs and
memoranda. On October 4, 2018, this Court ordered the
State of Louisiana to show cause why the State had not
complied with this Court's March 29, 2018
Order. This Court further advised that, in lieu
of a showing of cause. Respondent could elect to comply in
full with the Court's Order of March 28,
2018. Petitioner objected to this Court's
later Order on the grounds that Respondent was "eight
(8) months delinquent complying with thirty (30) day Order of
this Court, " Petitioner requested this Court to Order
the District Attorney to comply within twenty-one days or
"default and issue Summary Judgment in favor of
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts (Habeas Rules) do not contemplate default
motions. Although Rule 12 of those rules permits the Court to
apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when appropriate,
the Fifth Circuit has expressly found that "[d]efault
judgments are not appropriate in habeas corpus cases,"
and that a habeas petitioner is not entitled to release
because of an untimely answer by the state ."
Because this is a habeas proceeding arising under Section
2254, default judgment would not be appropriate. Further, the
State has now fded an answer and memorandum in opposition to
petition for writ of habeas corpus curing the defect that
gave rise to the filing of Petitioner's Motions for
Default. For these same reasons, Petitioner's
Objection to the Magistrate Judge's
Order, which provided the State with additional time to file
an answer and memorandum, shall be overruled. Accordingly, IT
IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motions for Default and
Summary Judgment are hereby DENIED.
FURTHER ORDERED thai Petitioner's Objection to a
Magistrate Judge's Orderis OVERRULED.
 R. Docs. 15 & 17. Though titled
''Motions Tor Default and Summary Judgment,"
each motion is in substance only a motion for default
judgment as each Motion requests judgment based upon the sole
fact that Respondent failed to timely file an answer.
R. Doc. 14.
R. Doc. 11.
 R. Doc. 8.
R. Doc. 1.
 R. Doc. 8.
R. Doc, 11.