Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00127/USCOURTS-azd-2_22-cv-00127-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jerome Barnes,

Plaintiff,

v. 

David Shinn, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-22-00127-PHX-DLR (JFM)

ORDER 

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge 

James F. Metcalf (Doc. 33) regarding Defendant Siji Thomas’s Motion to Set Aside default 

(Doc. 29). The R&R recommends that Defendant’s motion be granted and the entry of 

default on June 29, 2023 (Doc. 27) be set aside. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties 

that they had fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of the R&R to file specific 

written objections with the Court. (Doc. 33 at 5.) 

On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed his objection. (Doc. 34.) Defendant filed his 

response on August 24, 2023. (Doc. 35.) 

The Court has considered Plaintiff’s objection and reviewed the R&R de novo. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge correctly determined 

that Plaintiff has not shown that, in failing to timely answer the complaint,

1 Defendant

intended to take advantage of Plaintiff, to interfere with judicial decision making, or to 

1 The Court notes that Defendant disputes Plaintiff’s assertion that she was properly 

served. 

Case 2:22-cv-00127-DLR-JFM Document 36 Filed 10/06/23 Page 1 of 2
- 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

manipulate the legal process. The Magistrate Judge also correctly found that Defendant has 

adequately established the existence of a factual dispute as to Defendant’s liability on a 

claim requiring proof of a deliberate indifference. Finally, the Magistrate Judge correctly 

determined that Plaintiff would suffer no prejudice if the default were set aside. There has 

been no showing that Plaintiff’s ability to litigate the case in any way has been harmed or 

limited or that he is worse off if the default is set aside than he would have been if

Defendant had timely answered.

Plaintiff’s objection argues that Defendant has been served with complaints in the 

past and is aware of the necessity to respond, and therefore, her failure to respond is further

evidence of her deliberate indifference. That conclusion is neither logical nor relevant to 

the issue before the Court. Plaintiff fails to offer evidence or argument that, in failing to 

file a timely answer, Defendant intended to take advantage of Plaintiff, to interfere with 

the judicial decision making, or to manipulate the legal process.

Plaintiff also asserts in his objection that he was prejudiced by the late answer 

because of the nature of his medical condition. That is an argument that might be made as 

part of the alleged damages caused by Defendant’s alleged indifference, but the Court does 

not find it to be evidence that Plaintiff’s ability to litigate the case has been harmed. 

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 34) is OVERRULED.

2. The R&R (Doc.33) is ACCEPTED.

3. Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default (Doc. 29) is GRANTED.

Dated this 6th day of October, 2023.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:22-cv-00127-DLR-JFM Document 36 Filed 10/06/23 Page 2 of 2