Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00314/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00314-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY KIRKWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. RAMIREZ,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-00314-JLT-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR DEFAULT

(Doc. 19)

Plaintiff Larry Kirkwood is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. INTRODUCTION

This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against 

Defendant Ramirez.

On December 7, 2023, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate. (Doc. 13.) 

Defendant filed a waiver of service on January 5, 2024. (Doc. 16.) On February 6, 2024, 

Defendant filed an answer to the complaint. (Doc. 17.) The Court issued its Order Referring Case 

to Post-Screening ADR and Staying Case for 90 Days on February 9, 2024. (Doc. 18.) 

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed an untitled document seeking default against 

Defendant for failing to respond to his complaint. (Doc. 19.) 

Case 1:23-cv-00314-JLT-SKO Document 20 Filed 02/21/24 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

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff is not entitled to default. Plaintiff’s request is dated and signed February 8, 2024. 

(Doc. 19.) He claims Defendant failed to respond to his complaint, but he is mistaken. Defendant 

filed a timely answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on February 6, 2024. (See Doc. 17.) Defendant 

served Plaintiff at his address of record by first class mail on that same date. (Id. at 8.) Rule 5 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a document “is served” by “mailing it to the 

person’s last known address—in which event service is complete upon mailing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5(b)(2)(C). 

Plaintiff’s request, made two days after the deadline for Defendant’s response, is also 

hasty. As noted above, Defendant served Plaintiff at his address of record by first class mail on 

February 6, 2024. (See Doc. 17 at 8.) Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations section 3133 

provides that “All First-Class Mail shall be delivered to the inmate as soon as possible, but not 

later than seven calendar days from receipt of the mail at the facility mailroom.” 15 C.C.R. § 

3133(a)(1). Therefore, even assuming Defendant’s answer was received at the facility’s mailroom 

the day after it was served by first class mail, or on February 7, 2024, the regulations allow for its 

delivery to Plaintiff within seven calendar days. Thus, Plaintiff should have waited seven days 

before asserting that Defendant did not timely comply with a deadline or court order. Had he done 

so, it is likely Plaintiff would have received Defendant’s timely filed answer. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for 

default (Doc. 19) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00314-JLT-SKO Document 20 Filed 02/21/24 Page 2 of 2