Vaughn v. Gullett et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for default judgment against Defendant Pacheco 147 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for filing dispositive motions in this matter is extended to November 5 , 2021. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to Defendant Travis Pacheco at his last known address. ( Dispositive Motions due by 11/5/2021.) Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 9/8/21. (JAB)Remark: Copy of Memorandum and Order mailed to Defendant Travis Pacheco at address listed in 129 .
Case: 4:19-cv-02566-JAR Doc. #: 148 Filed: 09/08/21 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 917
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
QUINCY C. VAUGHN,
THOMAS GULLETT, et al.,
No. 4:19-CV-02566 JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s September 1, 2021 letter to the Court, which
the Court has construed as a motion for default judgment against Defendant Travis Pacheco. (Doc.
No. 147). Plaintiff seeks a default judgment against Pacheco “for not answering or responding to
the issues” pertaining to his lawsuit. Plaintiff also states he has not gained access to his legal
materials following his transfer from the Eastern Reception Diagnostic and Correctional Center in
Bonne Terre, Missouri to the Southeast Correctional Center in Charleston, Missouri, and has not
received any notification that the Court extended his case deadlines pursuant to his recent request.
In an order entered August 27, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff a forty-five (45) day
extension of time, up to and including October 11, 2021, to complete his discovery. (Doc. No.
146). Because this affects the current deadline for filing dispositive motions, the Court will extend
the time for filing such motions from September 22, 2021 to November 5, 2021.
As for Plaintiff’s request for default judgment against Defendant Pacheco, pursuant to Rule
55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a default occurs when a defendant has failed to plead
or otherwise respond to the complaint within the time required by the Federal Rules. When the
default is established by affidavit or otherwise, the Clerk of the Court must enter the default. Fed.
Case: 4:19-cv-02566-JAR Doc. #: 148 Filed: 09/08/21 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 918
R. Civ. P. 55(a). Only after a defendant’s default has been entered, may a plaintiff apply for a
judgment based on such default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). See Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 140
F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1998) and Fingerhut Corp. v. Ackra Direct Marketing Corp., 86 F .3d 852,
856 (8th Cir. 1996). Defendant Pacheco filed an answer to Plaintiff’s amended complaint on
December 10, 2020. (Doc. No. 52). Thus, Plaintiff has not asserted a valid basis for a default
judgment against Pacheco.
The Court notes that in its August 27, 2021 order, it granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel
(Doc. No. 133) in part and directed Pacheco to respond to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories no
later than Monday, October 11, 2021. The Court also warned Pacheco that his failure to comply
with the Court’s Order could result in the imposition of sanctions against him. To the extent
Plaintiff’s request could be construed as a motion for imposition of sanctions against Pacheco,
such request is premature.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for default judgment against
Defendant Pacheco  is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for filing dispositive motions in this
matter is extended to November 5, 2021.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to
Defendant Travis Pacheco at his last known address.
Dated this 8th day of September, 2021.
JOHN A. ROSS
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?