Hash v. Santoro
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-00784
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hash v. Santoro, Judge Rogers denied Hash’s default request and allowed Santoro more time to respond in the pending federal imprisonment challenge.
Lawrence George Hash’s federal custody challenge continued without a default judgment, while Kelly Santoro received additional time to pursue her motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Hash v. Santoro, Lawrence George Hash, a state prisoner representing himself, asked the court to enter default against Kelly Santoro because she missed the deadline to answer or seek dismissal of his federal challenge to his imprisonment.
The court found that Santoro had filed a late motion to dismiss and excused the delay. It denied Hash’s request for default, explaining that a late response does not eliminate Hash’s burden to show that his custody violates federal law. The court also ordered the clerk to send Hash the motion and supporting materials.
The court gave Hash until December 12, 2019, to oppose the motion to dismiss and ordered Santoro to reply within 14 days after receiving any opposition. Judge Rogers issued the order on November 19, 2019.
The detailed version
- Hash v. Santoro · No. 4:19-cv-00784
- Yvonne Rogers
- Nov. 19, 2019
Background
Lawrence George Hash, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal petition challenging his custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He moved for entry of default, arguing that Kelly Santoro, the warden identified as the respondent, had failed to answer the petition or file a motion to dismiss by the court-ordered September 23, 2019 deadline.
Santoro filed a motion to dismiss on October 13, 2019, after the deadline. The court found good cause to excuse the late filing and, on its own initiative, granted Santoro an extension of time effective as of the October 13 filing date. The court warned that future missed deadlines could lead to sanctions.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a petitioner is not entitled to default judgment merely because a respondent did not respond to a habeas petition on time. The petitioner still bears the burden of showing that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. The court stated that state officials’ failure to meet court deadlines does not remove that burden or entitle the petitioner to default.
Ruling and next steps
The court denied Hash’s motion for entry of default. It also granted Santoro an extension of time to file the motion to dismiss. The order did not decide the merits of Hash’s petition or Santoro’s motion to dismiss. Because Hash apparently may not have received the motion, the court directed the clerk to send him the motion and supporting exhibits. Hash’s opposition was due December 12, 2019, and Santoro’s reply was due within 14 days after receiving any opposition. The order terminated Docket No. 17. Judge Rogers signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.