The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
MELVIN ANDERSON,
Petitioner,
vs. Case No.: 5:17-cv-335-Oc-32PRL
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN, USP I
Respondent.
/
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Petitioner Melvin Anderson’s Motion to
Strike Respondent’s Supplemental Response (Doc. 64), Motion for Production of
Documents (Doc. 65), and reply brief (Doc. 66), all of which the Court received
after the August 28, 2020, deadline had passed for Petitioner to file a reply brief,
and after the Court entered judgment denying the petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (See Doc. 60, Order to Show Cause; Doc. 62,
Order Denying Petition; Doc. 63, Judgment). Given the untimeliness of the
filings, the motions are due to be denied and the Court’s judgment is unchanged.
Petitioner’s motions also lack merit. In his reply brief and Motion to
Strike, he objects that the Warden’s supplemental response (Doc. 61) is
untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and therefore that the Court should strike it
and enter judgment for Petitioner.1 However, The Eleventh Circuit
“recogniz[es] that a default judgment is not contemplated in habeas corpus
cases.” Aziz v. Leferve, 830 F.2d 184, 187 (11th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).
Thus, in Goodman v. Keohane, the Eleventh Circuit rejected a habeas
petitioner’s argument that he was entitled to default judgment where the
respondent failed to return a timely answer to the petition. 663 F.2d 1044, 1047
n.4 (11th Cir. 1981). Additionally, other courts have held that § 2243 does not
displace a district court’s authority to grant a respondent additional time to
answer a habeas petition. See, e.g., Hudson v. Helman, 948 F. Supp. 810, 811
(C.D. Ill. 1996); Troglin v. Clanon, 378 F. Supp. 273, 278-81 & n.18 (N.D. Cal.
1974). Other courts have likewise held that they retain discretion under Section
2243 to order a supplemental response on the merits of a petition. See, e.g.,
Erwin v. Elo, 130 F. Supp. 2d 887, 890–91 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Thus, Petitioner’s
argument that the Court should strike the Warden’s supplemental response
under § 2243 and enter judgment in his favor lacks merit.2
1 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides in pertinent part: “The writ, or order to show cause
shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained. It shall be
returned within three days unless for good cause additional time, not exceeding twenty
days, is allowed.”
2 The Warden never conceded that Petitioner’s parole claim was meritorious. The
Warden initially argued that he was not the proper respondent for that claim. (Doc. 5
at 1 n.1). The Court ordered the Warden to address the merits in light of Rivas v.
Warden, FCC Coleman – USP I, 711 F. App’x 585 (11th Cir. 2018). (Doc. 58).
In the Motion to Strike, Petitioner also contends that Special Assistant
United States Attorney Janelle DiNicola is unauthorized to represent the
United States. Petitioner offers no evidence to support this frivolous claim.
Finally, Petitioner moves for a certified copy of the July 20, 2017 decision
by the National Appeals Board to deny release on parole, complete with a “seal
of authentication.” (Doc. 65). Petitioner asserts that the decision does not
actually exist. This claim is frivolous as well. The Warden attached to the
supplemental response a copy of the July 2017 National Appeals Board decision
(Doc. 61-1 at 25-27), which a deputy case management coordinator certified
under penalty of perjury to be a true and accurate copy of the records
maintained by the BOP (id. at 1-5). The Warden furnished a copy to Petitioner
(see Doc. 61 at 6), which he obviously received (see Doc. 66 at 22-238).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Petitioner Melvin Anderson’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 64) and Motion for
Production of Documents (Doc. 65) are DENIED.
2. The Court has considered Petitioner’s belated reply brief but concludes
that it does not alter the Court’s previously-entered judgment.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 2nd day of
November, 2020.
Cirncthug 9. Corrig an
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN
United States District Judge
lc 19
Copies:
Counsel of record
Pro se petitioner