Clark v. County of Sacramento et al

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 9/14/2017 ORDERING 38 that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FELICIA CLARK,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-1211 JAM DB PS

v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the

17
18

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On July 12, 2017, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations addressing

19
20

defendants’ partial motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 37.) On September 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a

21

motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 38.) However, as noted by defendants’ opposition filed

22

September 14, 2017, a defendant is subject to default judgment for failing to plead or otherwise

23

defend the action. (ECF No. 39 at 3.)

24

Here, defendants filed a motion for partial dismissal. (ECF No. 30.) Findings and

25

recommendations are currently pending before the assigned District Judge addressing the

26

resolution of defendants’ motion for partial dismissal. In this regard, plaintiff’s motion for

27

default judgment is improper.

28

////
1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s September 6, 2017 motion for

1
2

default judgment (ECF No. 38) is denied without prejudice.1

3

Dated: September 14, 2017

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.pro se\clark1211.mdj.den.ord

24
25
26
27
28

1

In this regard, should defendants fail to defend this action and a motion for default judgment
become procedurally proper, plaintiff may then re-notice her motion for default judgment. Prior
to doing so, plaintiff should review Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2