Cranford v. Badagon

Filing 130

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 129 Motion for Default Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/29/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

ARCHIE CRANFORD,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

ANGELA BACLAGON,
Defendant.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-00736-BAM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 129)

15
Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

16
17

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented

18

magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. (ECF No. 112.) Currently before the Court is

19

Plaintiff’s December 24, 2015 motion for an entry of default against Defendant Baclagon, based

20

on Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for discovery. (ECF No. 129.)

21

Entry of default is appropriate as to any party against whom a judgment for affirmative

22

relief is sought that has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of

23

Civil Procedure and where that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P.

24

55(a). After entry of default, the plaintiff can seek entry of default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.

25

55(b)(1) and (2). “Default judgments are generally disfavored, and whenever it is reasonably

26

possible, cases should be decided upon their merits.” In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 525 (9th Cir.

27

1991) (internal punctuation and citations omitted).

28

///
1

1

Plaintiff is not entitled to a default judgment in this matter. When Defendant did not

2

respond to Plaintiff’s motion for discovery within the time permitted, the Court deemed the

3

motion submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), and decided its merits. Based on Plaintiff’s

4

unchallenged assertions and the Court’s review of the record, the Court ordered certain relief for

5

Plaintiff as sought in his motion. (ECF No. 120.) That was all the relief Plaintiff was entitled to;

6

Defendant’s failure to respond to a non-dispositive discovery motion does not amount to a failure

7

to defend this action. Furthermore, although Defendant did not challenge Plaintiff’s discovery

8

motion, Defendant has otherwise defended this action, including by recently filing pretrial

9

documents in accordance with this Court’s pretrial order. (ECF Nos. 122-127.) Since Defendant

10

has not failed to defend this action or otherwise defaulted here, entry of default against her is not

11

appropriate.

12

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment

13

(ECF No. 129) is DENIED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 29, 2015

16

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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