Lawson v. Youngblood
Filing
68
ORDER DENYING 67 Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/4/2013. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
RICHARD ALAN LAWSON,
CASE No. 1:09-cv-00992-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
(ECF No. 67)
13
14
DONALD YOUNGBLOOD, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
_____________________________/
18
I.
19
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Richard Alan Lawson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
20
forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed on June 8, 2009 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
21
1983. (ECF No. 1.)
22
The matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21) of
23
inadequate medical care by Defendants Laird, Chang, Sawaske, Embrey, and
24
Clemente, and excessive force by Defendant Laird. (ECF No. 22.) Defendants Laird,
25
Sawaske and Embrey filed an Answer on August 1, 2012. (ECF No. 29.) Defendant
26
Chang filed an Answer March 28, 2013. (ECF No. 57.)
27
28
-1-
The Marshal was unable to locate Defendant Clemente, Nurse at Kern County
1
2
Jail, and returned the summons unexecuted. (ECF No. 38.) The Marshal was ordered
3
to make a second attempt, (ECF No. 53) but has not yet made a return of service
4
thereon.
5
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for entry of default judgment
6
against Defendant Clemente for failure to respond to the pleading. (ECF No. 67.)
7
Defendants Laird, Chang, Sawaske and Embrey object to the Motion to the extent it
8
seeks entry of their default. (ECF No. 66.)
9
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the Clerk of the
10
11
Court enter default “when a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is
12
sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or
13
otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Rule 55(b)(2) provides that the Court may grant a
14
default judgment after default has been entered by the Clerk of the Court.
When considering whether to enter a default judgment, the court should
15
16
consider “(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff's
17
substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake
18
in the action, (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether the
19
default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal
20
Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d
21
1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Al– Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384
22
(9th Cir. 1996); Alan Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir.
23
1989). “[T]he general rule disfavors default judgments. Cases should be decided upon
24
their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472.
25
III.
26
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s Motion, directed against Defendant Clemente, appears to seek relief
27
28
-2-
1
against all listed Defendants. The Motion shall be denied without prejudice as to
2
Defendant Clemente. The Motion shall be denied with prejudice as to remaining
3
Defendants Laird, Chang, Sawaske and Embrey.
4
A.
Defendant Clemente
5
Plaintiff is not entitled to entry of default against Defendant Clemente because
6
he has not demonstrated that that Defendant has been served with process. Absent
7
service, the Court has no jurisdiction over a defendant. Action Embroidery Corp. v.
8
Atlantic Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Harry and
9
David v. J & P Acquisition, Inc., 865 F.Supp.2d 494, 500 (D. Del. 2011) (absent proper
10
service a defendant is not legally called to answer and entry of default is void.)
11
In fact it appears the U.S. Marshal has not legally effected service of process
12
upon Defendant Clemente and thereby triggered that Defendant's legal obligation to
13
respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(e); Fed. R. Civ.
14
P. 55(a).
15
Plaintiff's instant motion is clearly premature as to Defendant Clemente. Until
16
and unless Defendant Clemente is in default, Plaintiff may not seek entry of his/her
17
default and judgment thereon.
18
B.
19
Plaintiff is not entitled to entry of default against Defendants Laird, Chang,
20
Sawaske and Embrey as they have responded to the Second Amended Complaint are
21
not in default. Their objection to the instant Motion, to the extent it seeks entry of
22
default against them, is sustained.
23
IV.
24
Defendants Laird, Chang, Sawaske and Embrey
ORDER
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT
25
Plaintiff's Motion for entry of default (ECF No. 67) is DENIED without prejudice as to
26
Defendant Clemente, and DENIED with prejudice as to Defendants Laird, Chang,
27
28
-3-
1
Sawaske and Embrey.
2
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated:
ci4d6
June 4, 2013
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
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?