Justin Ray Miller v. Mike Fitzhugh and Darren Hall

M.D. Tennessee

Justin Ray Miller v. Mike Fitzhugh and Darren Hall

DecidedNovember 18, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00321

StatusUnknown

This text of Justin Ray Miller v. Mike Fitzhugh and Darren Hall (Justin Ray Miller v. Mike Fitzhugh and Darren Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Justin Ray Miller v. Mike Fitzhugh and Darren Hall, (M.D. Tenn. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

JUSTIN RAY MILLER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Case No. 3:25-cv-00321 v. ) ) District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. MIKE FITZHUGH and DARREN HALL, ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER

Pending is Petitioner’s Motion Entry of Default against Respondent. (Doc. No. 20). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED. Petitioner filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on March 20, 2025. (Doc. No. 1). Respondent requested an extension within which to file a Response, which was granted by the Court on July 8, 2025. (Doc. No. 11). Respondent timely filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on August 13, 2025. (Doc. No. 15). Petitioner filed the pending Motion for Entry of Default on September 12, 2025. (Doc. No. 20). The Sixth Circuit has expressed a “strong preference for trials on the merits.” United States v. Real Prop., All Furnishings Known as Bridwell's Grocery, 195 F.3d 819, 820 (6th Cir. 1999) quoting Shepard Claims Serv., Inc. v. William Darrah & Assocs., 796 F.2d 190, 193 (6th Cir. 1986); United States v. $22,050.00 U.S. Currency, 595 F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 2010) “Where a defendant appears and indicates a desire to contest an action a court may exercise its discretion to refuse to enter default, in accordance with the policy of allowing cases to be tried on the merits.” Winder v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-02993-SHL-ATC, 2025 WL 2816754, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. July 18, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-CV-02993-SHL-ATC, 2025 WL 2718545 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 24, 2025) (quoting Wendt v. Pratt, 154 F.R.D. 229, 230 (D. Minn. 1994). By filing a timely Motion to Dismiss the Petition, the Clerk finds that Respondent is not in default and has clearly expressed his intent to defend this action. Petitioner’s Motion for Entry of Default, (Doc. No. 20), is DENIED.

s/ Lynda M. Hill Lynda M. Hill Clerk of Court

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

JUSTIN RAY MILLER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Case No. 3:25-cv-00321 v. ) ) District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. MIKE FITZHUGH and DARREN HALL, ) ) Respondents. )

ORDER

Pending is Petitioner’s Motion Entry of Default against Respondent. (Doc. No. 20). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED. Petitioner filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on March 20, 2025. (Doc. No. 1). Respondent requested an extension within which to file a Response, which was granted by the Court on July 8, 2025. (Doc. No. 11). Respondent timely filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on August 13, 2025. (Doc. No. 15). Petitioner filed the pending Motion for Entry of Default on September 12, 2025. (Doc. No. 20). The Sixth Circuit has expressed a “strong preference for trials on the merits.” United States v. Real Prop., All Furnishings Known as Bridwell's Grocery, 195 F.3d 819, 820 (6th Cir. 1999) quoting Shepard Claims Serv., Inc. v. William Darrah & Assocs., 796 F.2d 190, 193 (6th Cir. 1986); United States v. $22,050.00 U.S. Currency, 595 F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 2010) “Where a defendant appears and indicates a desire to contest an action a court may exercise its discretion to refuse to enter default, in accordance with the policy of allowing cases to be tried on the merits.” Winder v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-02993-SHL-ATC, 2025 WL 2816754, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. July 18, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:24-CV-02993-SHL-ATC, 2025 WL 2718545 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 24, 2025) (quoting Wendt v. Pratt, 154 F.R.D. 229, 230 (D. Minn. 1994). By filing a timely Motion to Dismiss the Petition, the Clerk finds that Respondent is not in default and has clearly expressed his intent to defend this action. Petitioner’s Motion for Entry of Default, (Doc. No. 20), is DENIED.

s/ Lynda M. Hill Lynda M. Hill Clerk of Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Justin Ray Miller v. Mike Fitzhugh and Darren Hall, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/justin-ray-miller-v-mike-fitzhugh-and-darren-hall-tnmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack