Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05313/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05313-4/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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

TIMOTHY BUFORD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

M.T.A. HAGGIE, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 02-5313 OWW DLB P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

SECOND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

[DOC 89]

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for entry of

default judgment filed October 17, 2005.

On September 9, 2005, the Court granted defendants’ request for an extension of time

through October 6, 2005 to respond to the amended complaint. However, on September 22, 2005,

plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint to which the Court ordered

defendants to respond on September 29, 2005. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion on

October 5, 2005 and also requested an extension of time to respond to the amended complaint. On

October 7, 2005, the Court granted defendants’ request and ordered defendants to respond to the

amended complaint within 30 days of the Court’s ruling on plaintiff’s motion. The Court ruled on

plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental complaint on November 15, 2005. In denying plaintiff’s

Case 1:02-cv-05313-OWW -DLB Document 96 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

motion, the Court granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint and also relieved

defendants of any obligation to file a responsive pleading until ordered to do so by the Court. 

Accordingly, defendants are not in default and plaintiff’s motion for entry of default is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 2, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05313-OWW -DLB Document 96 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2