Jackson v. Department of Corrections Washington et al

Filing 31

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; Dr. Kinslow to answer plaintiff's amended complaint within 14 days by Hon. Mary Alice Theiler. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Kyntrel Jackson, Prisoner ID: 355949)(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

KYNTREL T. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
WASHINGTON, et al.,

12

Case No. C16-1856-RAJ-MAT
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S
RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE
ORDER AND PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT

Defendants.

13
14

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prisoner civil rights action. Defendant Christopher Kinslow

15

failed to timely file an answer after waiving service of process. The Court ordered him to show

16

cause why a default should not be entered against him. (Dkt. 26.) In response, Dr. Kinslow

17

explained his confusion regarding how to contact and obtain representation through his former

18

employer, the Monroe Correctional Complex. (Dkts. 28 & 29.) Counsel has appeared on his

19

behalf, and he is ready to fully participate in the litigation. (Dkts. 27 & 29.) Plaintiff filed a reply

20

asking the Court to enter default judgment in his favor. (Dkt. 30.)

21

Having considered the foregoing, the Court finds and ORDERS:

22

(1)

23

Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED. Entry of default

judgment is left to the Court’s sound discretion. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE
TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT - 1

1

1980). In exercising its discretion, the Court considers (1) the possibility of prejudice to the

2

plaintiff if relief is denied; (2) the substantive merits of the plaintiff’s claims; (3) the sufficiency

3

of the claims raised in the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in relationship to the

4

defendant’s behavior; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether default

5

was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the preference for decisions on the merits when reasonably

6

possible. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Although Dr. Kinslow has

7

delayed this litigation, the Court finds that these factors weigh against entering default judgment,

8

particularly given that plaintiff has not been prejudiced and Dr. Kinslow is ready to proceed to the

9

merits.

10
11

(2)

Dr. Kinslow shall answer plaintiff’s amended complaint within 14 days of the date

this Order is signed. Thereafter, the Court will issue a pre-trial scheduling order.

12

(3)

13

Richard A. Jones.

14

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable

Dated this 29th day of August, 2017.

15

A

16

Mary Alice Theiler
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE
TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER AND
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT - 2