Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00438/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00438-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

L.E. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07CV0438-BTM(LSP)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. 13)

Plaintiff has moved the Court to enter default judgment as to Defendants L.E. Scribner, T.

Ochoa, R. Madden, D.W. Bell, E. Trujillo, G. Haley, R. Nelson, P. Zill, and R. Bass. Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) and CivLR 72.3.f., the Hon. Barry T. Moskowitz has referred Plaintiff’s motion to

this Court for report and recommendation. After due consideration and as set forth below, the Court

finds Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he requests and recommends the motion be DENIED without

prejudice.

On May 21, 2007, District Judge Moskowitz granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and referred service of Plaintiff’s Complaint and summons to the United States Marshall. By

way of his motion, Plaintiff claims service was executed on each of the above identified Defendants on

June 15, 2007.

On July 20, 2007, executed Waivers of Personal Service of Summons were filed by the U.S

Marshall for seven of the defendants that are the subject of Plaintiff’s motion, specifically Defendants

Case 3:07-cv-00438-WVG-RBB Document 28 Filed 07/23/07 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

2

G. Haley, L.E. Scribner, E. Trujillo, T. Ochoa, D.W. Bell, R. Madden, and R. Bass. (Doc. 14 – 20).

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 4(d)(3), these defendants are not required to serve an answer or

responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Complaint until sixty days after June 15, 2007, the date on which the

U.S. Marshall sent the requests for waiver of service to these defendants. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion

is premature as to these defendants. 

 Service of Defendants R. Nelson and P. Zill can not be verified by any means other than

Plaintiff’s assertion. Pursuant to CivLR 5.2, a valid and complete proof of service shall be filed with the

Court promptly and before any action is to be taken thereon by the Court or the parties. No such proof

of service has been filed by either Plaintiff or the U.S. Marshall for Defendant R. Nelson or Defendant

P. Zill. Accordingly, there is presently no basis for Plaintiff’s motion as to these two defendants. 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order

DENYING Plaintiff’s motion.

IT IS ORDERED that no later than August 3, 2007, any party to this action may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties that have appeared in the case. The document

should be captioned “Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections with the specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s

order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: July 23, 2007

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00438-WVG-RBB Document 28 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2