Jordan v. Hall et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for Damages Attributable to Defendant Paul Johnson (ECF No. 221 ) is GRANTED in part, in accordance with the foregoing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded damages in the amount of$1,186.00.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of $454.50. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 09/01/2015. (CLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
BRIAN D. HALL, et al.,
Case No. 4:12CV2070 JCH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Ronald Jordan’s Request for Damages
Attributable to Defendant Paul Johnson, filed June 16, 2015. (ECF No. 221). The motion is fully
briefed and ready for disposition.
By way of background, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter against several Defendants
on November 2, 2012. With respect to Defendant Johnson, Plaintiff alleged that in late 2010,
Defendant Johnson deliberately obstructed Plaintiff’s right to seek redress of grievances, when he
did not process and instead discarded Plaintiff’s submitted Informal Resolution Request. Plaintiff
further alleged that Defendant Johnson retaliated against Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff’s exercise
of his right to file grievances, by unduly prolonging Plaintiff’s confinement in a restrictive housing
unit, and by attempting to have Plaintiff fired from his prison job.
On September 11, 2014, in response to a series of Motions to Compel filed by Plaintiff, the
Court ordered that Defendants’ responses to all outstanding discovery requests were to be
postmarked no later than Monday, October 6, 2014. The Court warned that “[a]ny Defendant’s
failure to comply with such directive may result in the imposition of sanctions against such
Defendant, up to and including the striking of his pleadings.” Defendant Johnson failed to respond
- 1 -
to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, and the Court therefore struck his pleadings on March 4, 2015. The
Clerk of Court then entered default against Defendant Johnson on March 17, 2015.
As stated above, Plaintiff filed the instant Request for Damages Attributable to Defendant
Paul Johnson on June 16, 2015. Assistant Attorney General Katherine Walsh filed a response to
Plaintiff’s motion on July 29, 2015, and Plaintiff filed his reply on August 10, 2015. The parties
have now been afforded a full and fair opportunity to submit evidence on the issue of monetary
relief, and so the Court may determine the relief to which Plaintiff is entitled pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2).2 See Taylor v. City of Baldwin, Mo., 859 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th Cir. 1988)
(quoting Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1, 12 (1944)) (“‘[i]t is a familiar practice . . . for a court
upon default, by taking evidence when necessary or by computation from facts of record, to fix the
amount which the plaintiff is lawfully entitled to recover and to give judgment accordingly’”).
Therefore, upon careful consideration of the record before it, the Court now awards Plaintiff
damages against Defendant Johnson as follows:
Because the Clerk has entered default against Defendant Johnson, he has “no further standing to
contest the factual allegations of plaintiff’s claim for relief.” Taylor, 859 F.2d at 1333 n.7 (internal
quotations and citations omitted). Instead, the “allegations of the complaint except as to the amount
of damages are taken as true.” Brown v. Kenron Aluminum & Glass Corp., 477 F.2d 526, 531 (8th
Cir. 1973) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
- 2 -
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Damages Attributable to Defendant
Paul Johnson (ECF No. 221) is GRANTED in part, in accordance with the foregoing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded damages in the amount of
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of $454.50.
Day of September, 2015.
\s\ Jean C. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 3 -
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?