Glass v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission et al

Filing 67

ORDER DENYING 66 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (tb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
TAILEIA M. GLASS,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.
TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES COMMISSION, et al.,
Defendants.

6:16-CV-341-RP-JCM

ORDER
Before the Court in the above-entitled matter is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment,
which seeks the entry of judgment against Texas Health and Human Services. (Dkt. 66). Although
Plaintiff’s motion states that it is being filed “[i]n accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
55(a),” Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Rule 55(b). (Id. at 1, 3 (requesting that the Court “grant
judgment against Texas Health and Human Services in the amount of $14,000,000”)); Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(b) (“If the plaintiff's claim is for a sum certain . . . the clerk . . . must enter judgment for that
amount.”). Because Plaintiff has not previously sought entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(a), 1 the
instant motion must be and is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED on May 25, 2018.
_____________________________________
ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

While Plaintiff may file a Rule 55(a) motion if she so chooses, the Court notes that Defendant Texas Health and
Human Services (“THHS”) has appeared in this case. (See THHS Mot. Extension, Dkt. 61; THHS Mot. Dismiss, Dkt.
63). The Court further notes that Plaintiff has not responded to THHS’s motion to dismiss, which was filed on May 9,
2018. See W.D. Tex. Loc. R. CV-7(e)(2) (establishing a 14-day deadline for responding to dispositive motions). Although
courts “liberally construe briefs of pro se litigants and apply less stringent standards to parties proceeding pro se than to
parties represented by counsel, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with [federal procedural
rules].” Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 524, 524 (5th Cir. 1995).
1