Demerson v. Woodford et al
Filing
155
ORDER DENYING 150 Motion for Entry of Default Judgment signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/30/2012. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
EDWARD DEMERSON,
10
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00144-LJO-SKO PC
Plaintiff,
11
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY
OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
v.
(Doc. 150)
12
JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al.,
13
Defendants.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Edward Demerson, a state prisoner proceeding pro, filed this civil rights action
16
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 29, 2008. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second
17
amended complaint, filed on June 24, 2009, against Defendants Phillips, Campos, Amaro, Clausing,
18
Bardonnex, Munoz, and Cartagina for using excessive physical force against Plaintiff, and against
19
Defendants Munoz, Cartagina, Gregory, and Hillard for acting with deliberate indifference toward
20
Plaintiff’s resulting injuries, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
21
On November 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed his second motion seeking entry of default judgment
22
against Defendant Gregory. The undersigned considered and denied Plaintiff’s first motion on April
23
13, 2012. While the denial was without prejudice, the procedural posture of this case has not
24
changed since the Court issued its denial and there is no legal support for Plaintiff’s renewal of the
25
motion at this time. Unnecessary multiplication of the proceedings by either side is viewed with
26
disfavor.
27
///
28
///
1
1
2
Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment is HEREBY SUMMARILY DENIED and
Plaintiff is DIRECTED to review the order filed on April 13, 2012.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
b9ed48
November 30, 2012
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?