Hanna v. Mariposa County Sheriff Dept. et al

Filing 36

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER SHOW CAUSE Why this Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute or File a Motion for Entry of Default Within Thirty Days, Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/23/2013. (Arellano, S.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
MARIPOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.
et al.,

Case No. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER
SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE OR FILE A MOTION FOR ENTRY
OF DEFAULT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

15
Defendants.
16
17
18

Plaintiff Richard Charles Hanna, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

19

filed this action on April 2, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and

20

found that it stated cognizable claims against Defendants Mariposa County Sheriff Department,

21

and Deputies Boehm, Rumfelt, Rameriz, and King. (ECF No. 13.) The Court ordered service of

22

the complaint and on July 15, 2013, the summonses were returned by the United States Marshal

23

showing that personal service had been effected on all defendants on May 16, 2013. (ECF No.

24

32.)

25

Defendants’ response to the complaint was due within twenty-one days from the date of

26

service of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). As of this date, no defendant has filed an

27

answer or other pleading responsive to the complaint, nor has Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of

28
1

1

de
efault pursua to Federa Rule of Civil Procedur 55.1
ant
al
re

2
3
4

Within thirty days from the date of service of this orde Plaintiff s
n
e
er,
shall either s
show cause
wh this action should not be dismisse for Plaint
hy
t
ed
tiff’s failure to prosecute or file a mo
e
otion for
en of defau
ntry
ult.

5

Accord
dingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
S
O

6

1.

7

Within thir days from the date of service of th order, Pl
rty
m
f
this
laintiff shall file a
written resp
ponse to the Court, show
wing cause w this actio should no be
why
on
ot

8

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to p
f
prosecute or a motion fo entry of de
r
or
efault; and

9

2.

10

Plaintiff's failure to com
f
mply with th order sha result in a recommend
his
all
dation that
this action be dismissed
d.

11
12

T
DERED.
IT IS SO ORD

13
Dated:

14

August 23 2013
3,

_

_

U
UNITED ST
TATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
E
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Error! Main Document Onl
E
D
ly.Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Proced
F
dure 55, obtain
ning a default judgment is a
two step process. Yue v. Storag Technology Corp., No. 3:07-cv-05850, 2
.
ge
y
2008 WL 3611 *2 (N.D.C Feb, 11,
142,
Cal.
2008). Entry of default is appro
d
opriate as to an party agains whom a judg
ny
st
gment for affirm
mative relief is sought that
s
has failed to plea or otherwise defend as provided by the F
ad
e
Federal Rules o Civil Procedu and where that fact is
of
ure
ma to appear by affidavit or otherwise. Fed R. Civ. P. 55
ade
b
o
d.
5(a). After ent of default, t plaintiff can seek entry of
try
the
n
f
default judgment Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1) an (2). “Defaul judgments ar generally disfavored, and w
t.
nd
lt
re
whenever it is
rea
asonably possib cases shou be decided upon their mer
ble,
uld
rits.” In re Ham
mmer, 940 F.2 524, (9th Cir 1991)
2d
r.
(in
nternal punctua
ation and citatio omitted).
ons

2