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)

Download PDF
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

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?