Williams v. Bell et al

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 31 Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 01/16/2018. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 C. BELL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:16-cv-01584-AWI-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT [ECF No. 31] Plaintiff John Wesley Williams is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default, filed January 12, 2018. 20 Plaintiff seeks entry of default judgment against Defendants for their alleged failure file a responsive 21 pleading within thirty days of the denial of the vexatious litigant motion. 22 On October 27, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ request to stay the responsive pleading 23 deadline and granted Defendants thirty days after the final ruling on their vexatious litigant motion to 24 file a responsive pleading. 25 On November 30, 2017, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations 26 recommending to the district judge that Defendants’ motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant be 27 denied. (ECF No. 30.) The Findings and Recommendations are not a final order unless and until the 28 district judge assigned to this action adopts the recommendations in full. As of today’ date, no final 1 1 ruling on the pending Findings and Recommendations has been issued. Accordingly, the time period 2 for Defendants to file a further response has not yet began, and Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default 3 judgment is denied. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: 7 January 16, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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?