Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00001/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00001-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN HAIRL WILHELM,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. A. ROTMAN, et al., 

Defendants.

1:10cv0001 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

(Document 28)

Plaintiff Steven Hairl Wilhelm (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed on December 31, 2009. On July 12, 2012, the Court issued an order finding 

service of the First Amended Complaint appropriate as to Defendant Dr. A. Rotman and requiring 

Plaintiff to return service documents within thirty days.

Plaintiff submitted service documents on August 6, 2012, and this Court directed the United 

States Marshal to serve Defendant Rotman by order dated August 15, 2012.

On December 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default. In his request, he cites 

the language in the August 15, 2012, which states, “Within ten days from the date of this order, the 

Marshals Service is directed to notify...defendants of the commencement of this action and to 

request waiver of service. . .” Plaintiff states that because this time has passed and Defendant 

Rodman has not yet filed answer, he is entitled to entry of default.

Plaintiff correctly states that the United States Marshal was directed to initiate service of 

process on August 15, 2012. There is no evidence in the record that service has been effected, 

however, triggering Defendant’s legal obligation to respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), (e); Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Indeed, the Court notes that Defendant has an 

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 31 Filed 01/31/13 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

opportunity to waive service of the summons and First Amended Complaint, and should he elect to 

waive service, he has sixty days from the date set forth in the waiver to file that response. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(d); Service Order. 

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore premature, the absence of any documentary evidence in 

support of his motion notwithstanding. Until and unless Plaintiff has evidence that Defendant is in 

default, he should not seek entry of default. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default is HEREBY DENIED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

55(a). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 31 Filed 01/31/13 Page 2 of 2