(HC) Phan v. Covello

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedAugust 4, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-02219
StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Phan v. Covello ((HC) Phan v. Covello) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
(HC) Phan v. Covello, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MINH KHA HOANG PHAN, No. 2:21-cv-2219 TLN CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 P. CAVELLO, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 On March 14, 2022, respondent timely-filed a motion to dismiss petitioner’s petition for a 18 writ of habeas corpus. Apparently petitioner never received the motion which resulted in 19 petitioner filing what the court construes as a motion for entry of default judgment on April 31, 20 2022. 21 Good cause appearing, the court will order respondent to re-serve the motion to dismiss. 22 Petitioner will be given additional time to respond and then respondent will be given additional 23 time to file a reply. The court will recommend that petitioner’s motion for default be denied. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. Respondent shall re-serve on petitioner the motion to dismiss originally filed March 26 14, 2022 within 7 days. Petitioner’s opposition, or statement of non-opposition to the motion, is 27 due within 30 days of service of the motion to dismiss. Petitioner’s failure to comply with this 28 ///// 1 | order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Respondent’s reply shall be 2 || filed within 21 days of service of petitioner’s opposition or statement of non-opposition. 3 2. Petitioner’s July 11, 2022 request to file a “‘sur-reply” is denied. 4 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s March 31, 2022 motion for 5 || “summary judgement,” which is essentially a motion for entry of default judgement, be denied. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 8 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 11 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 12 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 13 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 | Dated: August 3, 2022 / aa / x ly a 1s CAROLYN K DELANEY 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 | 1 20 phan2219.def 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(HC) Phan v. Covello, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-phan-v-covello-caed-2022.