Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF=S 

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT 

AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

GARCIA AND GUERRERO

(Docs. 96, 99.)

I. BACKGROUND

 Eric Charles Rodney K=napp (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the 

Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, against defendants 

Warden Derral G. Adams, Lieutenant (ALt.@) E. Smith, Lt. J. T. Tucker, Associate Warden S. 

Sherman, and D. Selvy (Classification Services Representative), for retaliating against Plaintiff, 

and against defendants K. Motty, Sgt. C. Pugliese, Lt. Smith, R. Guerrero, Appeals Coordinator 

Cooper, Appeals Coordinator V. R. Garcia, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Does 1-5 

(Mailroom Workers) for interfering with his right to send mail in violation of the First 

Amendment.1 (Doc. 16.) 

 

1On March 12, 2012, defendants Meaders, Cuevas, and Johnson were dismissed from this action by the 

Court, based on Plaintiff=s failure to exhaust remedies against them before filing suit. (Doc. 88.) All other claims 

and defendants, other than those listed above, were dismissed from this action by the Court on August 17, 2009, 

based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 29.)

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 102 Filed 06/11/13 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On December 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against defendants 

Garcia and Guerrero, and on January 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment 

against defendants Garcia and Guerrero. (Docs. 96, 99.)

II. ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

Entry of default is appropriate as to any party against whom a judgment for affirmative 

relief is sought that has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and where that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

55(a). Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, A[A] defendant must serve an 

answer within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint; or if it has timely 

waived service under Rule 4(d), within 60 days after the request for a waiver was sent.@ Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). Under Rule 4(d), a defendant may waive service of a summons by 

signing and returning a waiver of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). If a defendant fails to plead or 

otherwise defend an action after being properly served with a summons and complaint, a 

default judgment may be entered pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

Once default has been entered against a defendant, the court may, A[f]or good cause 

shown . . . set aside an entry of default. . . .@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). AThe court=s discretion is 

especially broad where ... it is entry of default that is being set aside.@ O=Connor v. State of 

Nevada, 27 F.3d 357, 364 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard Mgmt., 783 

F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 504 (9th Cir. 

2000). Default is generally disfavored. In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 525 (9th Cir. 1991); 

Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Mendez, 585 F.3d 1183, 1189 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff’s Arguments

Plaintiff argues that default should be entered against defendants Garcia and Guerrero

because they failed to plead or otherwise defend in this action as required by the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff also argues that default judgment should be taken against 

defendants Garcia and Guerrero because neither of them filed an answer or other defense to the 

complaint, even though more than sixty days have passed since personal service was effected 

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 102 Filed 06/11/13 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

upon them. Plaintiff asserts that on October 10 and 12, 2012, the U.S. Marshal personally 

served defendants Garcia and Guerrero (“Defendants”) with process in this action. (Court 

Docket, Doc. 94.) As of January 7, 2013, the date of Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, 

Plaintiff asserts that neither of the Defendants had filed an answer or other defense to Plaintiff’s 

complaint pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(i), even though more than sixty days had passed. 

Discussion

On March 14, 2012, the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshal 

(“Marshal”) to serve process in this action upon defendants Guerrero and Garcia. (Doc. 89.) 

On November 13, 2012, the Court received two USM-285 forms from the Marshal indicating 

that personal service was effected upon defendants Guerrero and Garcia on October 12, 2012 

and October 10, 2012, respectively, which gave the two defendants twenty-one days in which 

to file an answer or motion under Rule 12 in response to Plaintiff=s complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(a)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. 94.) 

More than sixty days passed after service was executed, and defendants Guerrero and 

Garcia did not file an answer, a motion under Rule 12, or any other response to Plaintiff=s 

complaint. (See Court Docket.) However, on January 2, 2013, and January 9, 2013,

respectively, defendants Guerrero and Garcia filed Answers to the complaint. (Docs. 97, 100.)

Because defendants Guerrero and Garcia appeared in this action, albeit after their deadlines, by 

filing Answers on January 2, 2013, and January 9, 2013, the court cannot find that they failed 

to plead or otherwise defend this action. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to entry of default 

or default judgment against defendants Guerrero and Garcia.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff=s request for entry of default against defendants Garcia and Guerrero, 

filed on December 20, 2012, is DENIED; and 

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 102 Filed 06/11/13 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendants Garcia and Guerrero, 

filed on January 7, 2013, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 102 Filed 06/11/13 Page 4 of 4