Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-0/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

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-GSA PC

ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY

OF DEFAULT, AND (2) GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

RESPONDING TO THE COMPLAINT AND

FOR A THIRTY-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME

TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT, TO

COMMENCE UPON ISSUANCE OF

SCREENING ORDER

(Docs. 1 and 10)

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California tort law. Defendants Adams, David, Melo,

Martinez, Ruiz, Miranda, Mendoza, and Masiel (“Defendants”) removed this action from Kings

County Superior Court on September 11, 2008. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). In conjunction with their

notice of removal, Defendants requested to be relieved of their obligation to respond to the complaint

pending screening by the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c). Defendants

are seeking a thirty-day extension of time to respond to the complaint, to commence upon issuance

of the screening order.

On October 8, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the entry of default based on

Defendants’ failure to file a response to the complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 81(c)(2)(C).

///

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 11 Filed 10/15/08 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

In general, default is disfavored and cases should be decided on their merits whenever

possible. TCI Group Life Ins. v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 695-96 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).

Here, Defendants filed a motion seeking an extension of time to respond with their notice of

removal. The Court had not yet ruled on the motion when Plaintiff moved for entry of default.

Under the circumstances presented by this case, there are no factors favoring entry of default against

Defendants. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default, filed October 8, 2008, is DENIED; and

2. Defendants’ motion for an extension of time, filed September 11, 2008, is

GRANTED, and Defendants shall have thirty (30) days to file a response to the

complaint, to commence upon issuance of the screening order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 15, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 11 Filed 10/15/08 Page 2 of 2