Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03069/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03069-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeffrey J. Prager, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio and Jane Doe Arpaio;

C. Lillie, #7787; Ms. Mayes/MCSO Jane

and John Doe; Unknown MCSO

Employees; and Ms. Gonzalez, Clerk of

the Superior Court for Maricopa County, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-3069-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action by filing a pro se complaint against

Defendants on December 1, 2006. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff has filed a motion for default judgment

against Defendants pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #13.

Defendant Gonzalez has filed a response to the motion. Dkt. #16. Defendants Arpaio, Lillie,

Mayes, and Unknown MCSO Employees have filed a response and a motion for relief from

entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(c). Dkt. #17. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

will deny the motions and direct the United States Marshal Service to properly effect service

of process on Defendant Gonzalez.

I. The Rule 55 Motions.

Obtaining default judgment under Rule 55 is a two-step process. First, the clerk must

enter the non-appearing party’s default under Rule 55(a). Once the party’s default has been

Case 2:06-cv-03069-DGC Document 18 Filed 03/19/07 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

- 2 -

entered, either the clerk or the court enters default judgment under Rule 55(b). See Eitel v.

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986) (discussing two-step process under Rule 55).

In this case, the Clerk has not entered Defendants’ default under Rule 55(a). The

Court accordingly will deny Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and Defendants’ motion

for relief from entry of default.

II. Defendant Gonzalez.

On January 23, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status and directed

the Marshal Service to effect service of process in this matter. Dkt. #6. The Clerk issued

summonses as to all Defendants on January 26, 2007. The summons issued with respect to

Defendant Gonzalez identified Defendant as “Ms. Gonzalez, Clerk of Superior Court,” and

listed the address as “201 W. Jefferson, Phoenix AZ 85003,” which is the address for the

Superior Court’s Central Court Building. Dkt. #8. On January 31, 2007, the Marshal Service

served the summons and a copy of the complaint on Special Deputy Clerk Josh Harts. Id.

In response to Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, Defendant Gonzalez asserts

that Mr. Harts is an employee of the Maricopa Board of Supervisors who had no authority

to accept service on Defendant’s behalf. Dkt. #16 at 1. Attached to the response is a

supporting affidavit from Mr. Harts. Id. Ex. 1. Defendant does not identify the agent who

has authority to accept service on her behalf.

The Court will direct the Marshal Service to attempt to properly serve process on

Defendant Gonzalez by March 30, 2007. The Marshal Service shall notify the Court by

April 6, 2007 if it is unable to serve process on either Defendant Gonzalez personally or the

agent authorized to accept service on her behalf.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. #13) is denied.

2. Defendants’ motion for relief from entry of default (Dkt. #17) is denied.

3. The Marshal Service is directed to serve process on Defendant Gonzalez by

March 30, 2007.

4. The Marshal Service shall notify the Court by April 6, 2007 if it is unable to

Case 2:06-cv-03069-DGC Document 18 Filed 03/19/07 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 -

properly serve process on Defendant Gonzalez.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03069-DGC Document 18 Filed 03/19/07 Page 3 of 3