Stewart v. Annucci et al
Filing
24
DECISION AND ORDER denying 23 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court has directed the Pro Se Office to contact Michael Russo, Assistant General in Charge, Buffalo Regional Office, in an effort to serve Swartz.SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 9/6/2019. A copy of the NEF and Decision and Order were mailed to Plaintiff. (AFM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CHANCE NATHANEAL STEWART,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case # 17-CV-771-FPG
DECISION AND ORDER
ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, et al.,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
On August 9, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Chance Nathaneal Stewart brought this action against
Defendants Anthony J. Annucci, Michael Sheahan, and Blaine Swartz for alleged violations of his
civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was an inmate at Southport Correctional Facility.
ECF No. 1. He also moved for in forma pauperis status. ECF No. 2. Plaintiff later filed Amended
and Second Amended Complaints. ECF Nos. 10, 13.
The Court granted Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion and on October 29, 2018, it
screened his Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A and
determined that this case would proceed against Swartz only. ECF No. 15. The Court directed
the United States Marshals to serve Swartz. Id.
Since then, the U.S. Marshals have attempted to serve Swartz twice and the summons has
been returned unexecuted. ECF Nos. 17, 22. As a result, on August 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a
motion for default judgment against Swartz. ECF No. 23. For the reasons that follow, the Court
denies Plaintiff’s motion.
1
DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 sets forth the method for obtaining a default judgment.
See Priestley v. Headminder, Inc., 647 F.3d 497, 504-05 (2d Cir. 2011). First, the plaintiff must
secure an entry of default from the Clerk of Court, which requires a showing “by affidavit or
otherwise” that the defendant “has failed to plead or otherwise defend” itself in the action brought
against it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Next, once the plaintiff has obtained an entry of default, he may
seek a default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).
Here, Plaintiff asks for a default judgment, but he did not first obtain an entry of default
from the Clerk of Court as Rule 55(a) requires. Moreover, there is no evidence that Swartz is in
default because, according to the docket, Swartz has not been served despite the U.S. Marshals’
attempts to do so. Accordingly, the Court cannot enter default judgment against him. See
Dorrough v. Harbor Sec., LLC., No. 99 CV 7589(ILG), 2002 WL 1467745, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. May
10, 2002) (“[W]here service of process has not been properly effected, the court lacks personal
jurisdiction over the defaulting defendant, and a default judgment entered against him is void and
must be vacated.”). Thus, for all of these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.
The Court has directed the Pro Se Office to contact Michael Russo, Assistant General in
Charge, Buffalo Regional Office, in an effort to serve Swartz.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 6, 2019
Rochester, New York
___________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
2
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?