ANDERSON v. FOLINO et al
Filing
86
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re Order denying motions for default judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy on 06/13/2012. (far)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KEITH ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOUIS FOLINO, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 10-937
Chief Judge Gary L. Lancaster
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in this action on March 14, 2012. On March
19, 2012, this Court ordered Defendants to provide Plaintiff with discovery and further ordered
that dispositive motions and briefs in support thereof must be filed by June 29, 2012. On March
27, 2012, Defendant Gibbs filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 73) along with a Brief in support
thereof (ECF No. 74) claiming that the second amended complaint should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
On April 3, 2012, the DOC
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 76) along with a Brief in support thereof (ECF
No. 77) claiming that the second amended complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. On May 3, 2012, this Court dismissed the pending
motions to dismiss without prejudice to Defendants filing motions for summary judgment within
the deadlines set forth in this Court's Case Management Order.
On May 29, 2012, Defendant Michelle Howard-Diggs filed an Answer and Affirmative
Defenses to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 82). On June 1, 2012, the DOC
Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 83). On June
8, 2012, Plaintiff filed requests for default judgment against all defendants based on their failure
1
to have filed their answers within fourteen days after receiving notice that the Court dismissed
the pending motions to dismiss.
This Court has discretion to allow Defendants to file their answers outside the time limits
set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A plaintiff does not suffer cognizable prejudice simply because he is forced to
litigate issues raised in a late answer. Because we disfavor default judgments,
doubts as to whether a defendant should be permitted to file an untimely answer
should be resolved in favor of allowing a determination on the merits.
Kimberg v. University of Scranton, 411 Fed. App’x 473, 479 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal citations
omitted). Plaintiff has failed to show that he suffered any prejudice as a result of Defendants’
failure to file their answers within fourteen days. Thus, there is no basis for default against any
Defendant. In accordance with the Case Management Order, summary judgment motions are
due on or before June 29, 2012.
/s/Cynthia Reed Eddy
Cynthia Reed Eddy
United States Magistrate Judge
Keith Anderson
AS-3252
SCI Rockview
Box A
Bellefonte, PA 16823-0820
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?