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)

Download PDF
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

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?