Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01754/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01754-3/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

JUAN SOUSA,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. WEGMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE No. 1:11-cv-01754-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF

DEFAULT

(ECF No. 16)

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Juan Sousa is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed October 21, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No.

1.) Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for all purposes and proceedings.

(Consent to Magistrate, ECF No. 5.) 

This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Sec. Am.

Compl., ECF No. 12) alleging Defendant Wegman violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment

right to free exercise of his religion. (Order Finding Cognizable Claim, ECF No. 13.) 

On October 16, 2012, the Court issued its order directing service upon

Defendant Wegman by the U.S. Marshal and ordered that service be completed by

February 18, 2013. (Order re Service, ECF No. 15.) 

1

Case 1:11-cv-01754-DAD-MJS Document 17 Filed 12/19/12 Page 1 of 3
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

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request and declaration for entry of default.

(Req. Entry Default, ECF No. 16.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that the Clerk of the

Court enter default “when a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is

sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or

otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Rule 55(b)(2) provides that the Court may grant a

default judgment after default has been entered by the Clerk of the Court.

When considering whether to enter a default judgment, the court should consider

“(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive

claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the action,

(5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts, (6) whether the default was

due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72

(9th Cir. 1986); see also Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996); Alan

Neuman Prods., Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1989). “[T]he general

rule disfavors default judgments. Cases should be decided upon their merits whenever

reasonably possible.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472.

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff is not entitled to entry of default because he has not demonstrated that

the Defendant has been effectively served with process. Absent service, the Court has

no jurisdiction over a defendant. Action Embroidery Corp. v. Atlantic Embroidery, Inc.,

368 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Harry and David v. J & P Acquisition,

Inc., 865 F.Supp.2d 494, 500 (D. Del. 2011) (absent proper service a defendant is not

legally called to answer and entry of default is void.) 

There is no evidence that the U.S. Marshal has legally effected service of

process upon Defendant Wegman and thereby triggered Defendant’s legal obligation to

respond to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), (e); Fed. R. Civ.

2

Case 1:11-cv-01754-DAD-MJS Document 17 Filed 12/19/12 Page 2 of 3
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

P. 55(a). The Court’s October 16, 2012 order for Marshal’s service does not constitute

service of process, but rather directs the U.S. Marshal to effectuate service prior to the

applicable service deadline of February 18, 2013.

1

Plaintiff’s instant motion is clearly premature. Until and unless Defendant is in

default, Plaintiff may not seek entry of default and judgment thereon. 

IV. ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT

Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default (ECF No. 16) is DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

12eob4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court takes judicial notice of its own records. United States v. W ilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119

1

(9th Cir. 1980).

3

Case 1:11-cv-01754-DAD-MJS Document 17 Filed 12/19/12 Page 3 of 3