Cranford v. Badagon

Filing 67

ORDER Denying 63 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/15/14. (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. 63) 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 a motion for default judgment. Although difficult to discern, 4 it appeared that Plaintiff sought default judgment against Defendant Balcagon based on an apparent 5 belief that the Court has not screened the two joined cases and that Defendant Balcagon had not 6 submitted an answer to the joined cases. Plaintiff also claimed that Defendants had failed to comply 7 with discovery. (ECF No. 52.) 8 9 On April 16, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, noting that there had been no entry of default against Defendant Balcagon. The Court also noted that Defendant 10 Balcagon had answered and appeared in this action, which rendered default unavailable. Additionally, 11 the Court clearly stated that it had not ordered a consolidated complaint or any answer to such 12 complaint. (ECF No. 54.) 13 Despite the Court’s order denying default judgment, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for entry 14 of default against Defendants Balcagon, Perryman and Harder for failure to plead or otherwise defend 15 and for entry of default judgment. (ECF No. 63.) 16 Entry of default is appropriate as to any party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is 17 sought that has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and where that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). After entry of 19 default, the plaintiff can seek entry of default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1) and (2). “Default 20 judgments are generally disfavored, and whenever it is reasonably possible, cases should be decided 21 upon their merits.” In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 525 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal punctuation and 22 citations omitted). 23 Here, Plaintiff may not obtain entry of default or default judgment in this action. Defendant 24 Balcagon answered the complaint in this action on July 24, 2012. (ECF No. 12.) Prior to 25 consolidation, Defendants Perryman and Harder answered the complaint in 1:13-cv-00906 on October 26 16, 2013. (See Cranford v. Perryman, 1:13-cv-00906-LJO-BAM, ECF No. 17.) Following 27 consolidation, the Court did not order the filing of a consolidated complaint or an answer to any such 28 complaint. Defendants Balcagon, Perryman and Harder have all appeared and defended the 2 1 consolidated action. Thus, entry of default and default judgment are not available against these 2 defendants. Cf. Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Rests. Grp., Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 927–28 (9th 3 Cir.2004) (if party appeared, clerk’s entry of default void ab initio). 4 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default and default judgment, filed May 8, 2014, is DENIED. 6 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara May 15, 2014 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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?