Fields v. Lloren et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 23 Request for Entry of Default signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/13/2012. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

KEVIN E. FIELDS,

9

CASE NO.
Plaintiff,

1:09-cv-1733-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

10
(ECF No. 23)
11
12

v.
T. LLOREN, et al.,

13
14

Defendants.

15

/

16
Plaintiff Kevin E. Fields (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
17
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
Plaintiff initiated this action on October 2, 2009. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened
19
Plaintiff’s Complaint on December 10, 2010, and dismissed it with leave to amend for
20
failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on
21
December 17, 2010. (ECF No. 10.) The Court found that Plaintiff’s First Amended
22
Complaint stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Lloren and Battles and ordered
23
service on these Defendants. (ECF No. 18, 19, 21.) Defendants’ waivers of service were
24
returned on February 27, 2012, and Defendants were to file responsive pleadings by March
25
30, 2012. (ECF No. 22.) Defendants did not file any pleading until their Answer was filed
26
April 20, 2012. (ECF No. 24.)
27
On April 6, 2012, prior to Defendants filing their answer, Plaintiff filed a motion for
28

1

an entry of default. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff argued that he is entitled to a default judgment

2

because Defendants were served on February 27, 2012 and failed to file a timely

3

response. (Id.)

4

Plaintiff is correct that Defendants did not meet the applicable filing deadline.

5

However, Defendants’ Answer to the First Amended Complaint was only twenty-one days

6

late, and it does not appear Plaintiff suffered any prejudice from that delay. The Court

7

prefers that actions be addressed on the merits and not be disposed of against a party

8

because of that party’s inconsequential failure to meet a time limit. Moreover, Defendants’

9

answer makes it clear Defendants intend to defend against this action on the merits.

10

Thus, even if the Court were to enter default, it likely would be set aside. See Knox v.

11

Woodford, 2010 WL 19567839, *1 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2010). Thus, default is inappropriate.

12

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an entry of default (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:
ci4d6

June 13, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-