Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05407/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05407-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN JOSEPH NOBLE, IV,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5407 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

(Doc. 35.) 

 Steven Joseph Noble (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 10, 2004, Plaintiff moved for the entry of default against Defendants on the

grounds that the Notice of Motion to Dismiss incorrectly names Cambra, Terhune, Gomez and

Andrews as Defendants. However, the action filed is against Defendants Adams, Espinoza,

Cuevas and Pugliese. In addition, the Motion incorrectly states that Plaintiff is challenging the

conditions of confinement in the Secured Housing Unit when the allegations in the Amended

Complaint are for the conditions of confinement at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at

Corcoran. (Motion at 35.) 

In Opposition, Defendants argue that the errors made were “technical,” that the errors

made were unintentional and that Plaintiff has not been prejudiced by them as they were not

misleading. (Opposition at 2-3.) Further, Defendants filed an Amended Notice of Motion on

December 21, 2004, correcting the errors cited by Plaintiff. (Doc. 37.) 

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 44 Filed 08/19/05 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

2

Entry of default is appropriate as to any party against whom a judgment for affirmative

relief is sought that has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and where that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 55(a). Plaintiff is reminded that “[f]or good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of

default and, if a judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance

with Rule 60(b).” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 55(c). 

The Court has examined the Notice of Motion filed by Defendants and notes that the

Notice of Motion names Defendants not parties to this action and incorrectly states that Plaintiff

is challenging the conditions of confinement in the Secured Housing Unit. However, the Court

notes that more importantly the actual Motion to Dismiss addresses the correct claims and

appropriate Defendants in this action. 

In addition, other than his statement that Defendants are attempting to “circumvent” him

from receiving compensation on the allegations in his complaint, Plaintiff does not allege any

prejudice from the errors made in the Notice of Motion. 

Finally, Plaintiff concedes that the errors in the Notice of Motion were technical in

nature. Accordingly, the court finds these errors to be a technical pleading mistake and constitute

excusable neglect. See Panis v. Mission Hills Bank, 60 F.3d 1486 (10th Cir. 1995). Thus,

Plaintiff’s Motion for entry of default is unwarranted. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05407-SKO Document 44 Filed 08/19/05 Page 2 of 2