Sparks v. Henderson County Sheriffs Office et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 48 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 10/20/2016. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(khm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:16-cv-9-FDW
KART KALANI SPARKS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HENDERSON COUNTY SHERIFFS
)
OFFICE, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to
Defendants John Does ## 1-3 and Jane Doe #1. (Doc. No. 48).
Plaintiff’s motion is denied for the reasons stated in Defendants’ response brief. That is,
because Plaintiff has not identified the John Doe Defendants, they cannot be defaulted. See
Redmond v. Leatherwood, No. 06-C-1242, 2009 WL 212974, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 29, 2009).
Second, courts have interpreted the Prison Litigation Reform Act as prohibiting the grant of
default judgment unless the identified defendants have failed to respond to the Complaint after
being ordered to reply by the Court. See Lafountain v. Martin, No. 1:07-cv-76, 2009 WL
4729933, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 3, 2009) (collecting cases). Once the discovery period
commences, Plaintiff may serve discovery requests on Defendants directly to determine the
names of the John Doe and Jane Doe Defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (Doc. No. 48), is DENIED.