Cranford v. Nickels

Filing 39

ORDER Denying 38 Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/2/11. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13

Case No. 1:07-cv-01812 JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY
OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

vs.
(Doc. 38)

14
15
16

CHRISTINA NICKELS,
Defendant.
/

17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s July 29, 2011 motion for entry of

19

default judgment. (Doc. 38.) Therein, Plaintiff argues that default judgment should be entered against

20

Defendant for her failure to respond to this Court’s orders. (Id. at 2.)

21

The relevant background to this matter is as follows. On June 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion

22

to compel discovery responses. (Doc. 35.) After Defendant failed to file an opposition to the motion

23

in accordance with Local Rule 230(l), the Court issued an order to show cause on July 13, 2011. (Doc.

24

36.) Defendant filed a timely response to the order to show cause on July 27, 2011. (Doc. 37.) Therein,

25

Defendant concedes that she failed to file an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel in accordance

26

with Local Rule 230(l). (Id. at 2.) Defendant explains, however, that it was her belief that Plaintiff had

27

filed the motion to compel in error. (Id.) Defendant asserts that she never received discovery requests

28

in this case. (Id.) Defendant suggests that Plaintiff intended to file the motion to compel in a related
1

1

case, Cranford v. Salber, No. 08-cv-0063 SKO-PC,1 wherein Plaintiff did propound discovery on the

2

defendants. (Id.)

3

As the above discussion makes clear, Plaintiff’s pending motion for default judgment plainly

4

lacks merit, as Defendant did file a timely response to the Court’s order to show cause. Accordingly,

5

it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s July 29, 2011 motion for default judgment (Doc. 38) is

6

DENIED.2

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: August 2, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

This case has since been reassigned to the undersigned. The new case number is Cranford v. Salber, No. 08-cv0063 JLT-PC.
2

28

To the extent Plaintiff wishes to respond to Defendant’s assertion that the pending motion to compel was filed
in error and was intended to be filed in Cranford v. Salber, Plaintiff shall file such a response within seven days of the date
of this order.

2