Clark v. Guerrero
ORDER that 151 Michael E. Clark's Proposed judgment is REJECTED.FURTHER ORDERED that 154 Motion for Hearing or Status Check is DENIED. The clerk shall enter judgment consistent with this order and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/31/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MICHAEL E. CLARK,
Case No. 2:09-CV-141 JCM (PAL)
Presently before the court is plaintiff Michael E. Clark’s proposed judgment. (Doc. # 151).
Defendant Adrian Guerrero has not objected or responded. Also before the court is plaintiff’s
motion for a hearing or status check. (Doc. # 154).
The court ordered defendant to show cause why the court should not sanction him for
failure to notify the court whether he will proceed pro se or retain counsel over one and a half
years ago. (Doc. # 144). Defendant was warned that his failure to respond to the order would result
in the court entering sanctions, up to and including case-dispositive sanctions, against him. (Id.)
Since that time, defendant has not responded to the order or filed any other documents with the
Accordingly, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. (Doc. # 150). The
court ordered plaintiff to submit an appropriate judgment based on the court’s order. (Id.) Mr.
Clark’s proposed judgment is not, however, appropriate. Defendant asks the court to grant
$1,000,000.00 in compensatory damages for alleged medical costs, of which he provides no proof,
and $ 12,000,000.00 in punitive damages, for which plaintiff provides no legal basis. He also
requests additional damages for future medical costs, which he cannot estimate.
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Mr. Clark has not provided the court with any evidence. He has not shown that Guerrero
used excessive force. More importantly, he has failed to submit any evidence of his medical
injuries or any other loss that would justify compensatory damages at any level, let alone in the
outrageous sum requested.
When a district court enters default judgment for liability, “[t]he general rule of law is that
upon default the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of
damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977).
Damages, on the other hand, must be proven, and the court has the discretion to hold a hearing on
damages. FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2); id.
The only evidence plaintiff submits in support of his damages claims is an affidavit, which
does not include specific allegations of the injuries or the costs incurred in treatment. Plaintiff’s
outlandish claims for damages are not supported by proof or even allegation. Because plaintiff has
not provided the court with any indication that he possesses evidence capable of establishing a
damage award, the court will not hold a hearing or status check. The clerk will enter judgment in
favor of Mr. Clark. A nominal damage award of $1.00 against defendant Guerrero will be ordered
in Mr. Clark’s favor on his excessive force claim.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff Michael E.
Clark’s proposed judgment (doc. # 151) be, and the same hereby is, REJECTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Michael E. Clark’s motion for a hearing or
status check (doc. # 154) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
The clerk shall enter judgment consistent with this order and close the case.
DATED March 31, 2016.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James C. Mahan
U.S. 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?