Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02264/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02264-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

5 

10 

15

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

flLE:D 

13 HAY 10 At'\lQ: 01 

COURT 

tV ~1: :'~;Tr:·tC)" Cf CAlff0~tl1:~ 

,vfa/J DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DONNIE SCOTT, CASE NO. 12cv2264-WQH­ JMA 

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER 

HOMER, et aI., 

Defendants. 

11 HA)1ES,Judge: 

16 The matters before the Court are the Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default filed 

17 by Defendant S. Vasquez (ECF No. 36), and the Motion for Default Judgment filed by 

18 Plaintiff Donnie Scott (ECF No. 42). 

19 I. Background 

On September 17, 2012, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a 

2111 Complaint in this Court against eight Defendants alleging claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

22 § 1983. (ECF No.1). 

23 On October 15, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff s motion to proceed in fonna 

24 pauperis and ordered the U.S. Marshal to effect service of the Complaint upon the 

Defendants. (ECF No.5). On December 12, 2012, a return of service was filed 

26 indicating that Defendant Vasquez was personally served on December 10, 2012. (ECF 

27 No.9). 

28 On January 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for entry ofdefault against Vasquez. 

- 1 - 12cv2264-WQH-JMA 

Case 3:12-cv-02264-WQH-JMA Document 54 Filed 05/10/13 Page 1 of 4
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 (ECF No. 17). On January 18,2013, the Clerk entered default against Vasquez, and this 

2 entry ofdefault was filed on February 13,2013. (ECF No. 30). 

3 II On February 25, 2013, Vasquez filed a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default, 

411 accompanied by two declarations and exhibits. (ECF Nos. 35, 36). 

II On February 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 39). 

6 II On March 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Defaul t Judgment against Vasquez, 

711 accompanied by a declaration. (ECF No. 42). On March 13,2013, Vasquez filed an 

8 opposition to the Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 46). 

9 On March 26,2013, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to Set Aside Entry 

II ofDefault, accompanied by a declaration and exhibits. (ECF No.47). On April 4, 2013, 

11 II Vasquez filed a reply in support ofhis Motion to Set Aside Entry ofDefault. (ECF No. 

12 48). 

13 II. Discussion 

1411 Vasquez contends that good cause exists to set aside the Clerk's entry ofdefault 

II against him. Vasquez submits a declaration stating that he ceased working for the 

16 II California Department ofCorrections ("CDCR") in September 2012, and when he was 

1711 served in December 2012, he "was not aware ofthe fact that an employee ofthe CDCR 

18 II could be sued, and would need to appear in the lawsuit, even after they had ceased 

1911 working for the CDCR." (ECF No. 35-2 at 2). Vasquez states that he "also believed that 

II if a response from me to [Plaintiff]' s complaint was needed, a representative from the 

2111 CDCR would first contact me about the lawsuit." ld. Vasquez contends that he has 

2211 meritorious defenses to each ofPlaintiffs claims, and setting aside the entry ofdefault 

23 II will not prejudice Plaintiff. 

24 II Plaintiff contends that good cause does not exist to set aside the entry of default 

II against Vasquez, and instead the Court should enter default judgment against Vasquez. 

2611 Plaintiff contends that Vasquez received actual notice of the lawsuit and therefore his 

27 II conduct is culpable. Plaintiff contends that none of Vasquez's asserted defenses are 

2811 meritorious. 

- 2 - 12cv2264-WQH-JMA 

Case 3:12-cv-02264-WQH-JMA Document 54 Filed 05/10/13 Page 2 of 4
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

111 "Pursuant to Rule 55(c), a district court may set aside the entry of default upon a 

211 showing of good cause." Brandt v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co. ofFl., 653 F.3d 1108, 1111 

3 11 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). Three factors govern the inquiry into 

4 II "good cause" under Rule 5 5( c): "( 1) whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced, (2) whether 

II the defendant has a meritorious defense, and (3) whether culpable conduct of the 

6 II defendant led to the default." Brandt, 653 F .3d at 1111 (quotation omitted). A district 

7 "court's discretion is especially broad where, as here, it is entry of default that is being 

8 set aside, rather than a default judgment." O'Connor v. State ofNev. , 27 F.3d 357,364 

9 II (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted); see also id. ("Where timely relief is sought from a 

II default and the movant has a meritorious defense, doubt, if any, should be resolved in 

11 II favor ofthe motion to set aside the default so that cases may be decided on their merits.") 

12 II (quotation omitted). 

13 II The Court finds that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by setting aside the entry of 

1411 default against Vasquez. Plaintiff recently filed an Amended Complaint, and the case 

II against the other Defendants remains in its early stages. There is no indication that 

1611 setting aside the entry of default will hinder Plaintiffs ability to pursue his claim. Cf 

1711 TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 701 (9th Cir. 2001) ("To be 

18 II prejudicial, the setting aside of a [default] judgment must result in greater harm than 

1911 simply delaying resolution ofthe case. Rather, the standard is whether plaintiffs ability 

II to pursue his claim will be hindered.") (quotation omitted). Having reviewed the 

21 II Amended Complaint and the submissions ofthe parties, the Court finds that Vasquez has 

22 II made a sufficient showing of the possibility of having meritorious defenses to favor 

23 II setting aside the entry of default. Finally, to the extent Vasquez's failure to timely 

24 II respond to the Complaint was the result of culpable conduct, the Court finds that this 

II factor is outweighed by the other factors favoring setting aside the entry of default. Cf 

2611 Brandt, 653 F.3d at 1112 ("A district court may exercise its discretion to deny relief to 

2711 a defaulting defendant based solely upon a finding of defendant's culpability, but need 

28 II not. "). The Court finds that Vasquez has demonstrated that good cause exists for setting 

- 3 - 12cv2264·WQH-1MA 

Case 3:12-cv-02264-WQH-JMA Document 54 Filed 05/10/13 Page 3 of 4
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

12 

1 II aside the entry of default. For the same reasons, the Court finds that the Motion for 

2 Default Judgment should be denied. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F .2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th 

3 Cir. 1986). 

4 III. Conclusion 

IT IS HEREBY-ORDERED that the Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default is 

6 GRANTED. (ECF No. 36). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c), the 

7 Clerk's entry of default (ECF No. 30) is set aside. The Motion for Default Judgment is 

8 DENIED. (ECF No. 42). Vasquez shall file an answer or otherwise respond to the 

911 Amended Complaint within the time allotted by the applicable rules. 

Dated: (d·kJ 1 1 , 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

- 4- 12cv2264-WQH-JMA 

",," 

Case 3:12-cv-02264-WQH-JMA Document 54 Filed 05/10/13 Page 4 of 4