Goolsby v. Gonzales et al
Filing
22
ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 20 21 Requests for Entry of Default and to Open Discovery signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/11/2013. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
THOMAS GOOLSBY,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
1:11-cv-00394-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF=S
REQUESTS FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
AND TO OPEN DISCOVERY
(Docs. 20, 21.)
vs.
FERNANDO GONZALES, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
17
I.
BACKGROUND
Thomas Goolsby (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
18
with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
19
commencing this action on March 8, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On May 4, 2011, Plaintiff consented to
20
Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties
21
have made an appearance. (Doc. 6.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local
22
Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all
23
proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local
24
Rule Appendix A(k)(3). This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed
25
on September 17, 2012, against defendant T. Steadman for retaliation in violation of the First
26
Amendment.1 (Doc. 13.)
27
1
28
On April 22, 2013, the court dismissed all remaining claims and defendants from this action
based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 17.)
1
1
On September 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to open the discovery phase
2
for this action. (Doc. 20.) On October 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default
3
against defendant T. Steadman. (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff’s two requests are now before the court.
4
III.
DISCOVERY
5
Plaintiff requests a court order commencing discovery, because it has been more than
6
four months since the court ordered service to be completed by the U.S. Marshals Service
7
(“Marshal”), and Plaintiff is eager to begin discovery.
8
Plaintiff is advised that the court will issue a scheduling order setting a schedule for
9
discovery after defendant Steadman has filed an Answer to the complaint. To date, defendant
10
Steadman has not filed an Answer. (Court Record.) Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the
11
court to allow him to conduct early discovery.
12
II.
ENTRY OF DEFAULT
13
Entry of default is appropriate as to any party against whom a judgment for affirmative
14
relief is sought that has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of
15
Civil Procedure and where that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
16
55(a). Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, A[A] defendant must serve an
17
answer within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint; or if it has timely
18
waived service under Rule 4(d), within 60 days after the request for a waiver was sent.@ Fed.
19
R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). Under Rule 4(d), a defendant may waive service of a summons by
20
signing and returning a waiver of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). If a defendant fails to plead or
21
otherwise defend an action after being properly served with a summons and complaint, a
22
default judgment may be entered pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
23
Procedure.
24
Plaintiff’s Request
25
Plaintiff requests entry of default against defendant Steadman. Plaintiff asserts that on
26
May 6, 2013, the court ordered the Marshal to serve defendant Steadman with a copy of the
27
summons and complaint, and defendant Steadman has been served. Plaintiff argues that default
28
///
2
1
should be entered against the defendant because approximately five months have elapsed, and
2
defendant Steadman has not filed a responsive pleading or made an appearance.
3
Discussion
4
Court records reflect that on May 6, 2013, the court issued an order directing the
5
Marshal to serve process in this action upon defendant Steadman. (Doc. 19.) To date, the court
6
has not received any notice that defendant Steadman was served or that service by the Marshal
7
was unsuccessful. (Court Record.) Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants were properly
8
served with process and failed to plead or otherwise defend pursuant to Rule 55(a). Fed. R.
9
Civ. P. 55(a). Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default must be denied.
10
IV.
CONCLUSION
11
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
12
1.
13
2013, is DENIED; and
14
15
Plaintiff’s request for a court order opening discovery, filed on September 6,
2.
Plaintiff=s request for entry of default against defendant Steadman, filed on
October 9, 2013, is DENIED.
16
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
20
21
22
October 11, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
6i0kij8d
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?