Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01895/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01895-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

Plaintiff David N. Osolinski is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action was filed on December 1, 2014, and is pending screening. On January 8, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default. (ECF No. 9.) 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

government entity or officer or employee of a government entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). This Court 

and its staff takes its role serious in complying with statutes and other obligations under the United 

States Constitution and laws of the United States. As Plaintiff’s case is not the only case under 

consideration by the Court and because cases are screened in the order in which they are filed, absent 

good cause, the Court will screen cases in that order and will continue strive to avoid delays whenever 

possible. 

///

DAVID N. OSOLINSKI,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MARISA BIGO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01895-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AS PREMATURE

[ECF No. 9]

Case 1:14-cv-01895-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 2
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

In this case, the United States Marshal will be directed to initiate service of process on 

Plaintiff’s behalf when the Court has determined that Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable claims for 

relief and service is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). This case has not been 

screened by the Court and service is not yet appropriate. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default is HEREBY DENIED as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01895-AWI-SAB Document 10 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 2