Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01649-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON JAQUAY HOLMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTIAN LEPE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01649-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

DEFAULT

ECF No. 26, 27

Plaintiff Brandon Jaquay Holmes (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a 

civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau 

of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

Plaintiff initiated this action on October 9, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) On May 21, 2013, 

the Court found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against 

Defendant Lepe. (ECF Nos. 10, 15-16.) On October 2, 2013, the Court ordered the 

United States Marshal to serve Defendant Lepe. (ECF No. 20.) Defendant Lepe was 

served on November 6, 2013, and his answer was due on November 27, 2013. (ECF 

No. 22.) Defendant Lepe filed an Answer on January 10, 2014. (ECF No. 23.) 

Plaintiff has filed two motions for an entry of default judgment against Defendant 

Lepe due to Defendant Lepe’s failure to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF 

Nos. 26, 27.)

Case 1:12-cv-01649-AWI-MJS Document 30 Filed 02/27/14 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

As a general rule, default is disfavored and cases should be decided on their 

merits whenever reasonably possible. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Mendez, 585 F.3d 

1183, 1189 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted); TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. 

Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 693 (9th Cir. 2001); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.3d 1470, 1472 (9th 

Cir. 1986). In this instance, Defendant Lepe’s delay in filing his answer was not 

significant. The impact of the delay was minimal. Even if default had been entered 

before Defendant Lepe filed his Answer, it would likely have needed to be vacated 

because “[j]udgment by default is a drastic step appropriate only in extreme 

circumstances; a case should whenever possible, be decided on the merits.” United 

States v. Signed Personal Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 

2010), citing Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir.1984). Although Defendant 

Lepe’s answer was late, Plaintiff has not been significantly impacted by this delay and 

Plaintiff’s motions should be denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff having presented no basis upon which a default could be

taken against Defendant Lepe, his motions for a default judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01649-AWI-MJS Document 30 Filed 02/27/14 Page 2 of 2