Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01391/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01391-0/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

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

 Summary judgment has been granted for the other three defendants in this action. See 1

Order filed March 30, 2005. 

 Defendant Bhagavan has been identified as “Dr. Bhagavon” in several orders of this

2

court. The court will henceforth use the correct spelling of defendant Bhagavan’s name as it

appears in his motion to set aside entry of default.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORLANDO ELLISON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-1391 FCD JFM P

vs.

DR. NADIM KHOURY, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court on defendant Dr.

Bhagavan’s motion to set aside the clerk’s entry of default and on plaintiff’s motion for default

judgment.1

By order filed April 22, 2004, this court ordered the United States Marshal to

notify defendant Bhagavan of the commencement of this action and to request a waiver of service

from said defendant. A waiver of service, signed by defendant Bhagavan on June 14, 2004, was 2

Case 2:03-cv-01391-FCD-JFM Document 67 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 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

2

filed in this action on June 30, 2004. The signed waiver of service reflects a change of defendant

Bhagavan’s address to Bangalore, India. The waiver indicated that a response to the complaint

was due sixty or ninety days from April 29, 2004, depending on where the request for waiver of

service was sent. Both periods elapsed without a responsive pleading from defendant Bhagavan

and on February 2, 2005, this court directed the Clerk of the Court to enter defendant Bhagavan’s

default.

By order filed February 17, 2005, plaintiff was granted a period of twenty days in

which to seek appropriate relief against defendant Bhagavan. On Feburary 23, 2005, defendant

Bhagavan filed the instant motion to set aside entry of default. Plaintiff filed a motion for default

judgment on March 10, 2005. 

 Rule 55(c) provides that a court may set aside a default for

“good cause shown.” . . . . The “good cause” standard that governs

vacating an entry of default under Rule 55(c) is the same standard

that governs vacating a default judgment under Rule 60(b). See

TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th

Cir.2001). The good cause analysis considers three factors: 

(1) whether [defendant] engaged in culpable conduct that led to the

default; (2) whether [defendant] had a meritorious defense; or (3)

whether reopening the default judgment would prejudice

[plaintiff]. See id. 

Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Restaurants Group, Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 296 (9 Cir. th

2004). 

The record reflects no culpable conduct by defendant Bhagavan leading to entry of

default. Defendant Bhagavan has submitted evidence that following receipt of the summons,

complaint, and request for waiver of service he sent an e:mail to his employer, the National

Medical Registry, to inquire about the status of the case and was told that the company’s

insurance carrier was taking care of the matter. (See Declaration of N.K. Bhagavan, M.D., filed

February 23, 2005.) Defendant has also submitted evidence that the insurance company’s claims

superintendent assigned to the matter mistakenly thought that the only defendant in this case

covered by the insurer was Dr. Nadim Khoury, and that this mistake controlled inquiries from the

Case 2:03-cv-01391-FCD-JFM Document 67 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 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

3

insurance carrier about the case until February 2005, when defendant Bhagavan’s default was

entered. (See Declaration of Robert L. Johnston, filed February 23, 2005.) Defendant Bhagavan

has also presented evidence of a potentially meritorious defense to plaintiff’s claims. (See

Bhagavan Declaration.) Moreover, the record reflects no cognizable prejudice to plaintiff from

setting aside the entry of default.

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant Bhagavan’s motion to set aside entry

of default should be granted. Since the entry of default should be set aside, plaintiff’s motion for

default judgment should be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the

Court is directed to serve on defendant Bhagavan a copy of the discovery order filed in this

action on November 24, 2003; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

1. Defendant Bhagavan’s February 23, 2005 motion to set aside entry of default

be granted;

2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to set aside the default entered against

defendant Bhagavan;

3. Defendant Bhagavan be directed to respond to the complaint within ten days

from the date of any order by the district court adopting these findings and recommendations; and

4. Plaintiff’s March 16, 2005 and May 10, 2005 motions for default judgment be

denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

Case 2:03-cv-01391-FCD-JFM Document 67 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 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

4

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: December 20, 2005. 

12

elli1391.57def

Case 2:03-cv-01391-FCD-JFM Document 67 Filed 12/21/05 Page 4 of 4