Adams v. Yates et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING 21 Request for an Entry of Default, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 09/27/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

RICKEY ADAMS,

9

CASE NO.
Plaintiff,

1:10-cv-671-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR AN
ENTRY OF DEFAULT

10
(ECF No. 21)
11

v.

12

J. YATES, et al.,

13
14

Defendants.

15

/

16
Plaintiff Rickey Adams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil
17
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action in state court and
18
it was removed to this Court by Defendants.
19
Plaintiff initiated this action in state court on August 13, 2009. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff
20
served Defendants with a copy of the Summons and Complaint on March 16, 2010. (Id.)
21
Defendants removed this action to this Court on April 15, 2010. (Id.) In their Notice of
22
Removal, Defendants requested that the Court screen the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
23
1915(a), and Defendants requested thirty days to respond to the Complaint from the date
24
of service of the screening order.

(Id.) The Court granted the request, and gave

25
Defendants thirty days from the date of service of the screening order to respond if any
26
claims were found cognizable. (ECF No. 12.)
27
Plaintiff has now filed a second Request for an Entry of Default. (ECF No. 21.)
28

1

Plaintiff believes he is entitled to an Entry of Default because more than 20 days have

2

passed since Defendants were served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint and

3

Defendants have yet to file an answer or otherwise respond. (Id.) Plaintiff’s Request for

4

an Entry of Default is now before the Court.

5

As the Court informed Plaintiff in his original Request for an Entry of Default (ECF

6

No. 8), default is inappropriate (ECF No. 12). Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s previous

7

and currents Requests for an Entry of Default indicate that Defendants intend to defend

8

against this action. Thus default is inappropriate. Even if the Court were to enter default,

9

it could easily be set aside. See Knox v. Woodford, 2010 WL 19567839, *1 (E.D. Ca. May

10

14, 2010).

11

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for an Entry of Default (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated:
ci4d6

September 27, 2011

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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