Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00016/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00016-10/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

Plaintiff Bob Bejarano is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to file late “objections” to the Magistrate 

Judge’s orders denying Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default as to Defendants Allison and Hernandez. 

Plaintiff has not shown sufficient grounds to excuse the failure to comply with the Local Rule 303, 

which sets the time at which a Magistrate Judge’s ruling becomes final. 

Alternatively, Plaintiff’s objections are not persuasive. On July 2, 2013, the Court issued an 

order directing the United States Marshal to serve process in this action upon defendants Kathleen 

Allison, D. Goss, A. Hernandez, and R. Perez. 

On February 7, 2014, the Court received three USM-285 forms from the Marshal indicating 

that personal service was effected upon defendants Allison, Hernandez, and Perez on January 29, 

2014, which gave the defendants twenty-one days in which to file an answer or motion under Rule 12 

BOB BEJARANO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00016-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE 

LATE OBJECTIONS AND ORDER ON 

OBJECTIONS

[ECF Nos. 43, 44]

Case 1:11-cv-00016-DAD-SAB Document 48 Filed 05/23/14 Page 1 of 2
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

in response to Plaintiff’s complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). 

On February 7, 2014, the Marshal also requested a court order to reimburse service fee costs as 

to each three defendants. On February 19, 2014, the Court issued orders to defendants Allison and 

Hernandez to show cause why fees should not be imposed. 

On March 20, 2014, Defendants filed a response. On March 21, 2014, defendants Allison, 

Goss, Hernandez, and Perez filed a motion to dismiss. On this date, the Court issued an order to show 

cause as to why defendant Perez should not pay service fees. 

On March 28, 2014, the Court discharged the orders to show cause and denied the request for 

reimbursement as to defendants Allison and Hernandez. 

Defendant Perez filed a response to the order to show cause on April 16, 2014, and on May 13, 

2014, the order to show cause was discharged and the request for reimbursement was denied. 

On March 28, 2014, and April 16, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions for entry of 

default as to defendants Allison, Hernandez, and Perez.

 As stated by the Magistrate Judge, because Defendants have made an appearance in the action 

by filing a motion to dismiss, and Plaintiff identifies no basis to find that they failed to plead or 

otherwise defend this action. See, e.g., Mech. Mktg., Inc. v. Sixxon Precision Mach. Co., Ltd., No. 

11-cv-01844 EJD, 2011 WL 4635546, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2011) (citations omitted.) 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and, alternatively, his objections are 

OVERRULED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00016-DAD-SAB Document 48 Filed 05/23/14 Page 2 of 2