Saintal v. Cox et al

Filing 22

ORDER Denying 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment; Granting 20 Defendants' Motion to Strike 16 Response; and Denying 17 Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 04/14/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
PRISCELLA SAINTAL,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
JAMES C. COX, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/

2:13-cv-01293-JCM-CWH
ORDER

16
Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Priscella Saintal’s motion for default judgment.
17
(Doc. # 18). Defendants have filed a response in opposition. (Doc. # 21).
18
Plaintiff is an inmate currently in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections
19
(“NDOC”).
20
Plaintiff asserts that the state defendants were served with a summons and copy of the complaint
21
on July 22, 2013, and have failed to appear. Thus, according to plaintiff, she is entitled to default. She
22
is incorrect. While plaintiff did submit her complaint to the court on that date, a screening order was
23
not issued until November 20, 2013. (Doc. # 7). The complaint was filed that same day. (Doc. # 8).
24
On December 11, 2013, defendants filed their notice of limited appearance, listing defendants James
25
Cox, Sheryl Foster, Joseph Owens, and David Molnar.
26
On February 19, 2014, the court issued an order requesting the defendants file their notice of

1

acceptance of service by March 12. (Doc. # 12). On March 11, 2014, the defendants filed a notice of

2

acceptance of service on behalf of defendants Cox, Foster, Owens, and Molnar. Service was not

3

accepted on behalf of defendant Carolyn Myles as she no longer works for the NDOC. (See doc. # 13).

4

Her last known address was separately filed under seal. (Doc. # 14).

5

In response, plaintiff errantly filed an objection regarding defendants’ refusal to accept service

6

on behalf of Myles. (Doc. # 16). In response, defendants filed a motion to strike that objection. (Doc.

7

# 20).

8

It is clear that plaintiff has confused the appropriate timeline. The court’s February 19, 2014,

9

order set the deadline for filing responsive pleadings as April 21, 2014. That date has not passed, and

10

plaintiff is not entitled to default. Her motion is denied.

11

Finally, plaintiff has filed a motion for permissive joinder. (Doc. # 17). Plaintiff seeks to add

12

her partner, Kimberly Boykins,1 as a plaintiff in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1) permits potential

13

plaintiffs to join if “they assert any right to relief. . .” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1)(A) (emphasis added).

14

Ms. Boykins has not personally asserted any right to relief in this action, and Ms. Saintal may not join

15

her to the lawsuit unilaterally. The motion is denied.

16

Accordingly,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for default

18

(doc. # 18) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ motion to strike (doc. # 20) be, and the same
hereby is, GRANTED.

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s objection in response (doc. # 16) be, and the same

22

hereby is, STRICKEN.

23

...

24

...

25
26

1

The motion is handwritten and messy. As far as the court can tell, plaintiff’s partner’s last
name is Boykins.
2

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for joinder (doc. # 17) be, and the same
hereby is, DENIED.
DATED April 14, 2014.

4
5

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3