Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05150/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05150-0/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

JERRY T. CRIADO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-5150-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

(Doc. 28)

Plaintiff Jerry T. Criado (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against

defendants Chapman, Lopez, Todd, and Sullivan (“defendants”) for failing to provide plaintiff with

adequate exercise, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On June 30, 2005, plaintiff filed a request

for entry of default.

Entry of default is appropriate as to any party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief

is sought that has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and where that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).

Plaintiff has set forth no grounds that support the entry of default against defendants. Defendants

answered the complaint on December 22, 2004, and are not in default. 

Plaintiff’s request for entry of default is premised on a misunderstanding of a court order.

On January 7, 2005, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order which set deadlines for the

completion of discovery, for filing amended pleadings, and for filing pre-trial dispositive motions.

Case 1:04-cv-05150-AWI -SMS Document 29 Filed 07/11/05 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

Plaintiff’s belief that the order is self-executing and requires defendants to provide him with

discoverable information is mistaken. The order itself requires no action on the part of the parties.

Rather, it sets deadlines by which the parties must take certain action, if they choose so take action.

Discovery is conducted between the parties. In order for plaintiff to obtain any discovery

from defendants, plaintiff needed to have served defendants with a written request or requests for

discovery, subject to the constraints set forth in the January 7 order. Because plaintiff did not do so,

defendants are under no obligation to provide plaintiff with any discoverable information.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for entry of default, filed June 30, 2005, is HEREBY

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05150-AWI -SMS Document 29 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 2