Baca v. Ewing et al

Filing 20

ORDER Plaintiff's application for default judgment (Doc. 18 ) is denied. The claims against Defendants Ewing are dismissed for lack of service. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 2/13/2012. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

No. CV-11-0883-PHX-DGC

Tobias I. Baca,

10

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12

ORDER

Robert N. Ewing; and Fremont, Industrial
Indemnity, Cambridge,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff has filed an application for default judgment against Defendants in the
amount of $160,000,000. Doc. 18. The application will be denied.

17

The Clerk entered default against Defendant Freemont, Industrial Indemnity,

18

Cambridge, but denied default against Defendant Ewing because he has not been served

19

with process. Doc. 19. The Court will dismiss the claims against Defendant Ewing for

20

lack of service.

21

Plaintiff seeks default judgment against all Defendants, but the Court will consider

22

the application only as it relates to Defendant Freemont, Industrial Indemnity,

23

Cambridge. Default judgment is not automatic when default has been entered. In

24

deciding whether to exercise its discretion and enter default judgment, the Court should

25

consider (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's

26

substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in

27

the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the

28

default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d
1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).
Factors (2), (3), (4), and (5) persuade the Court that default judgment in the
amount of $160,000,000, or any other monetary amount, is not warranted in this case.
The Court cannot understand Plaintiff’s complaint. Doc. 1. It appears to allege that he
has been forced to undergo a wide range of surgical procedures against his will and has
been controlled by remote electronic technology.
asserted these claims many times in the past.

It also appears that Plaintiff has

The “informal brief” filed with his

complaint suggests that Plaintiff’s claims have been before at least two other judges of
this Court (Judges Wake and Murguia), before the Ninth Circuit, and before the United
States Supreme Court. Doc. 2. The Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff’s substantive
claims have merit, that his complaint sufficiently and plausibly pleads viable causes of
action, or that his claimed damages bear any relationship to reality. The Court also finds
a high likelihood of factual dispute with Plaintiff’s allegations. As a result, the Court
exercises its discretion to deny Plaintiff’s application for default judgment.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s application for default judgment (Doc. 18) is denied.

2.

The claims against Defendants Ewing are dismissed for lack of service.

Dated this 13th day of February, 2012.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-