Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00455/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00455-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WAYNE WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LURA MERRITT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

(Doc. 56)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO QUASH 

(Doc. 57)

Clerk of the Court to Serve Answer on Plaintiff

Plaintiff David Wayne Wilson is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

Following screening, the Court ordered this action to proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants Fishburn, 

Merritt and Carlson, in their individual capacities; First Amendment retaliation claim against 

Defendant Merritt, in her individual capacity; Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause 

claim against Defendant Carlson, in her individual capacity; and state law equal protection clause 

claim against Defendant Carlson, in her individual capacity. (Doc. 35; see also Doc. 45 [denying 

reconsideration].) 

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 59 Filed 04/10/24 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

27

28

2

The Court directed service of process by the United States Marshal (see Doc. 36), and on 

March 19, 2024, Defendants L. Merritt, M. Correa1, and C. Carlson filed an answer to Plaintiff’s 

first amended complaint. (Doc. 53.)

On March 20, 2024, the Court issued its Order Referring Case To Post-Screening ADR 

And Staying Case For 90 Days. (Doc. 54.) 

On March 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Motion For Default

Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a)” (Doc. 56) and a document titled “Plaintiff’s Motion To Quash Defendant’s 

Review Plaintiff’s Medical Records Jan 2018 To Jan 2019 For The Time Restriction Reception 

CSATF Jan 28 2019 And Prior Privileged Information Local Rule 250.5(a), (b), (c), Fed.R.Civ.P. 

45.” (Doc. 57). The Court deems a response by Defendants to the motions to be unnecessary.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

Plaintiff’s motion asserts Defendants have “failed to file a Response” and “failed to 

Respond” to his complaint. (Doc. 56 at 1, 2.) Because their response was due March 19, 2024, 

Plaintiff seeks default pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(a). (Id. at 2.) 

Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “When a party against whom 

a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure 

is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” 

Here, Plaintiff is not entitled to the clerk’s entry of default. Indeed, Defendants filed an 

answer to Plaintiff’s operative complaint on March 19, 2024. (See Doc. 53.) Because Plaintiff’s 

motion is dated and signed March 24, 2024, the Court presumes Plaintiff was not yet in receipt of 

Defendants’ answer when he prepared his motion. Out of an abundance of caution, and as a onetime courtesy, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to provide Plaintiff with a copy of 

Defendants’ answer with this order. As no Defendant is in default given their timely response to 

the operative complaint, Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash

Briefly stated, Plaintiff moves to “quash” review of his medical records by Defendants, 

1 Sued herein as “Monica Fishburn.” 

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 59 Filed 04/10/24 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

27

28

3

citing their reference to the necessity to review his medical records in anticipation of filing a 

responsive pleading, Plaintiff’s assertion that he had no interaction with medical staff until 

February 2019, and this Court’s Local Rule 250.5. (Doc. 57.) 

Local Rule 250.5 provides, in relevant part:

(a) Subpoenas Duces Tecum. Responses to subpoenas duces tecum 

shall identify each category in the subpoena duces tecum as to which 

no documents are produced because no documents exist in the 

possession of the person subpoenaed and shall comply with Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 45(d)(2). 

(b) Objections. Each objection to any subpoenas duces tecum shall 

include a statement of reasons and, if appropriate, citation to relevant 

authority. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(2)(B). 

(c) Service of Subpoenas Duces Tecum. Subpoenas duces tecum 

directed to parties or non-parties shall be served on all parties to the 

action and on the non-party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45

Here, the Court finds there is no indication Defendants have served a subpoena duces 

tecum. Rather, as Defendants’ February 16, 2024 request for an extension of time within which to 

file a responsive pleading appears to indicate, defense counsel merely requested copies of 

Plaintiff’s medical records from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as a 

part of counsel’s representation of its employees, Defendants Carlson, Correa and Merritt. (See

Doc. 50 at 7, ¶ 4.) Nor does Plaintiff’s motion indicate he is in receipt of any subpoena. See Local 

Rule 250.5(c) (“Subpoenas duces tecum directed to parties or non-parties shall be served on all 

parties...,” emphasis added.) Additionally, the Court notes Plaintiff’s motion is signed and dated 

March 24, 2024, or four days after this Court issued a ninety-day stay of this action. In light of the 

present stay of these proceedings, Plaintiff’s motion also inappropriate.

In sum, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to “quash” because there is no indication a 

subpoena duces tecum has been issued in this action and because the action is presently stayed to 

allow for the possibility of early ADR proceedings.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for default (Doc. 56) is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to quash (Doc. 57) is DENIED; 

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 59 Filed 04/10/24 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

27

28

4

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff with a copy of Defendants’ 

answer filed March 19, 2024, as a one-time courtesy; and

4. The previously imposed stay remains in effect. With the exception of the Notice 

Regarding Early Settlement Conference form (see Doc. 54 at 4 [blank notice form]), 

no party shall file any pleadings or motions during the stay. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00455-JLT-CDB Document 59 Filed 04/10/24 Page 4 of 4