Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00815/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00815-22/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

SID LANDAU,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. T. VOSS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-CV-00815-AWI-DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

ALLEN’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY

OF DEFAULT

(DOC. 86)

Plaintiff Sid Landau (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 4, 2010, the Clerk’s

Office was directed to enter default against defendant Wendy Allen. Docs. 83, 84. On October

26, 2010 Defendant Allen moved to set aside the entry of default. Doc. 86. No opposition was

filed by Plaintiff. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

Once default has been entered against a defendant, the court may, “[f]or good cause

shown . . . set aside an entry of default . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). “The court’s discretion is

especially broad where, as here, it is entry of default that is being set aside, rather than default

judgment.” O’Connor v. State of Nevada, 27 F.3d 357, 364 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Mendoza v.

Wight Vineyard Mgmt., 783 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Brady v. United States, 211

F.3d 499, 504 (9th Cir. 2000). Default is generally disfavored. In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524,

525 (9th Cir. 1991). Therefore, “‘[w]here timely relief is sought from a default . . . and the

movant has a meritorious defense, doubt, if any, should be resolved in favor of the motion to set

aside the [default] so that cases may be decided on their merits.’” Mendoza, 783 F.2d at 945-46

1

Case 1:07-cv-00815-AWI-DLB Document 89 Filed 12/13/10 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

(quoting Schwab v. Bullock’s, Inc., 508 F.2d 353, 355 (9th Cir. 1974) (internal quotations and

citation omitted)); see United States v. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Judgment

by default is a drastic step appropriate only in extreme circumstances; a case should, whenever

possible, be decided on the merits.”) (quoting Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir. 1984)). 

In determining whether to set aside default, relevant factors including the culpability of

defendant, the existence of a meritorious defense, and any prejudice to plaintiff should be

considered. TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2001); American

Ass’n of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir. 2000).

On March 24, 2009, Defendant Allen returned a waiver of service of summons. Doc. 28. 

Defendant then failed to file any response until her present motion. Defendant Allen contends

that she was ignorant of the requirements for filing an answer, and did not intentionally fail to

answer. Def.’s Mot. 3:12-24. Defendant Allen contends that she has a meritorious defense as

her actions were reasonable and did not violate any established rights. Id. at 4:27-5:3. Defendant

Allen also contends that the prejudice to Plaintiff will be minimal, as Plaintiff has had his similar

claims dismissed as against five other Defendants. Id. at 5:6-10.

Having considered Defendant Allen’s arguments, the Court finds good cause to set aside

the entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(c). Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY

ORDERED that Defendant Allen’s motion to set aside entry of default is GRANTED. 

Defendant Allen is granted twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order in which to file

her answer to Plaintiff’s complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 13, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-00815-AWI-DLB Document 89 Filed 12/13/10 Page 2 of 2