Millner v. Woods et al

Filing 25

ORDER as to why Entry of Default should not be entered as to Defendant Hashem,signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/27/17. (30-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

JAMES MILLNER,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. WOODS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:16-cv-01209-SAB-PC
ORDER AS TO WHY ENTRY OF
DEFAULT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED
AS TO DEFENDANT HASHEM
[ECF No. 19]
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

17
18

Plaintiff James Millner is proceeding pro se in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

19

1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Woods and Hashem, in their individual

20

capacities, for deliberate indifference to a serious dental need in violation of the Eighth

21

Amendment.

22

On September 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed proof of service of process of the summons and

23

complaint on Defendant Hashem. Despite being served with process on August 3, 2017,

24

Defendant Hashem has not filed a response to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. (ECF No. 19.)

25

Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the Clerk of the Court

26

enter default “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed

27

to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise . . . .” Fed. R.

28

Civ. P. 55(a).
1

1

On this record it appears that entry of default is appropriate as to Defendant Hashem.

2

Accordingly, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall

3

indicate whether entry of default as to Defendant Hashem is appropriate.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:

October 27, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2