Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00962/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00962-0/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

27

28

- 1 - 07cv962

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE GENE RUFF,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07-CV-962 – IEG (CAB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

FINDING OF DEFAULT AND

ENTRY OF DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

[Doc. No. 11] 

vs.

M. RAMIREZ; N. BROWN; S. A.

THOMAS; T. JUAREZ,

Defendants.

Presently before the court is a motion for finding of default and an entry of default judgment

filed by Willie Gene Ruff (“plaintiff”). (Doc. No. 11.) For the following reasons, the court denies

plaintiff’s motion. 

BACKGROUND

On May 25, 2007, plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a four-count complaint against

M. Ramirez, N. Brown, S. A. Thomas, and T. Juarez (collectively “defendants”), pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §1983. (Doc. No. 1.) Along with his §1983 complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which the court granted. (Doc. Nos. 2, 3.) On July 13, 2007, the

U.S. Marshal’s Service mailed the complaint and a request for waiver of service to each defendant,

as directed by plaintiff. (Doc. No. 4, 5.) On August 13, 2007, each defendant mailed a signed waiver

of service of summons, which was received and filed by the Clerk of Court on August 16, 2007. (Doc.

Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9.) On August 17, 2007, plaintiff filed the instant motion, requesting the court enter

Case 3:07-cv-00962-JLS-CAB Document 16 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 Defendants also filed a motion to revoke plaintiff’s IFP status on August 28, 2007. (Doc. No.

12.) 

- 2 - 07cv962

default against defendants because they failed to timely file a responsive pleading as required by Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(a). (Doc. No. 11.)

DISCUSSION

Default, which is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, is a two-step procedure. First, there must

be an entry of default and, afterwards, the plaintiff can file a motion for an entry of default judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; 10 Moore’s Federal Practice – Civil §55.10[1] (2007). An entry of default requires

a showing by the plaintiff that the defendant has “failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by

[the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Thus, the court must first determine

if defendants have failed to abide by the rules governing timely responses and appearances before it

can enter default against them. 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), a plaintiff may request a defendant waive service of summons

and must give a defendant “a reasonable time to return the waiver, which shall be at least 30 days from

the date on which the request is sent . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2)(F). Where a defendant timely

returns a waiver, the defendant has 60 days from the date on which the request for waiver was sent

to file a responsive pleading to the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. (d)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a). Here, the

waivers of service that were filed establish that each defendant signed and mailed the waiver on

August 13, 2007, which is 30 days after the request for waivers were mailed on July 13, 2007. (Doc.

Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9.) Defendants have timely and properly waived service of summons. Therefore,

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants had 60 days from July 13, 2007 (i.e.

September 11, 2007) in which to file an answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s complaint. On

September 4, 2007, defendants filed an answer to plaintiff’s complaint, one week prior to the

expiration of the 60 day time limit granted by their waiver of service.1

 (Doc. No. 14.) Accordingly,

defendants met the deadlines set for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, entry of

default is inappropriate. Because there can be no entry of default in this case, it follows that entry of

default judgment is also inappropriate. 

///

Case 3:07-cv-00962-JLS-CAB Document 16 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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 - 07cv962

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for finding of default and entry

of default judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 19, 2007

HON. IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Southern District of California

Case 3:07-cv-00962-JLS-CAB Document 16 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 3