Cranford v. Badagon

Filing 54

ORDER Denying 52 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/16/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ANGELA BADAGON,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________________ )
)
CONSOLIDATED ACTION
)
)
ARCHIE CRANFORD,

21
22
23
24

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against
Defendant Balcagon for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and against
Defendants Perryman and Harder for failure to protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.1
Defendant Balcagon filed an answer on July 24, 2012. Defendants Perryman and Harder answered the
complaint on October 16, 2013.
On December 17, 2013, the Court consolidated 1:11-cv-00736-LJO-BAM and 1:13-cv-00906-

25
26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(ECF No. 52)

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

19
20

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00736 -LJO-BAM

LJO-BAM. The Court ordered that the operative complaints in both actions be deemed consolidated

27
1

28

Defendant Balcagon was sued erroneously as “Angela Badagon.” Defendant Harder was sued erroneously as
“Charlotte Havder.”

1

1

into the instant action. The Court neither required Plaintiff to file an amended complaint consolidating

2

his allegations, nor did it order Defendants to file a consolidated answer. (ECF No. 40.)

3

On April 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for default judgment. Although difficult to

4

discern, it appears that Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendant Balcagon based on an

5

apparent belief that the Court has not screened the two joined cases and that Defendant Balcagon has

6

not submitted an answer to the joined cases. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants have failed to

7

comply with discovery. (ECF No. 52.)

8
9

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55, obtaining a default judgment is a two-step
process. Hollis v. York, 2012 WL 1345754, *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2012). Entry of default is

10

appropriate as to any party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought that has failed to

11

plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and where that fact is

12

made to appear by affidavit or otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). After entry of default, the plaintiff

13

can seek entry of default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1) and (2). “Default judgments are

14

generally disfavored, and whenever it is reasonably possible, cases should be decided upon their

15

merits.” In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 525 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal punctuation and citations omitted).

16

Here, Plaintiff may not receive an entry of default judgment, because there has been no entry

17

of default against Defendant Balcagon. As indicated above, Defendant Balcagon has answered and

18

appeared in this action, rendering default unavailable. Further, the Court has not ordered a

19

consolidated complaint or an answer to any such complaint. Plaintiff’s remaining assertions regarding

20

discovery responses are unavailing.

21

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, filed

22

April 14, 2014, is DENIED.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 16, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2