Cheatham (ID 96193) v. ACH Medical Service et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 79 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 84 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 07/19/2017.Mailed to pro se party Ryan Cheatham by regular mail. (cv)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ACH, et al.,
Case No. 15-3211-CM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Ryan Cheatham, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action claiming that
defendants ignored his mental health needs, violating the Eighth Amendment and plaintiff’s due
process rights. The case is now before the court on plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment by Default (Doc.
79) and plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to File Supplemental Motion for Default Judgment (Doc.
84). For the following reasons, the court denies both motions.
In plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, he asks the court to enter default judgment because
he claims that defendants have not produced all documents required by the court’s order in Doc. 78.
Defendants respond that they have, in fact, produced all documents addressed in the order that are in
their possession. Further, plaintiff has not cited any law in support of his position that he is entitled to
Plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to default judgment for any discovery violations. For
this reason, the court denies Doc. 79.
Recognizing that he failed to properly support his motion for default judgment, plaintiff filed
Doc. 84, seeking leave to file a supplemental motion for default judgment. Defendants also contest
this motion, addressing the attached proposed motion for default judgment motion on its merits (as if
leave had already been granted). This argument is essentially one that plaintiff’s motion is futile.
The court finds that it would be futile to allow plaintiff to file a second motion for default
judgment based on a perceived failure to comply with the court’s discovery order. Plaintiff’s proposed
supplemental motion contains more analysis and legal reasoning than his first motion, but it still does
not supply a valid basis for granting default judgment. It appears that defendants have complied with
the court’s discovery order, so sanctions in the form of default judgment are not warranted. And
assuming the documents that plaintiff seeks do not exist, plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law based solely on the absence of such documents.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment by Default (Doc. 79) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to File Supplemental
Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 84) is denied.
Dated this 19th day of July, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Carlos Murguia_______
United States District Judge
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?