Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01655/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01655-15/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

LOUIS BRANCH, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

N. GRANNIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-01655-AWI-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST

DEFENDANT UMPHENOUR

(Doc. 71.)

I. BACKGROUND

Louis Branch (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on July 7,

2008. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on

August 25, 2010, against defendant D. Umphenour and two Doe defendants for failure to protect in

violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against defendant Umphenour for retaliation in violation

of the First Amendment. 

1

On October 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against defendant

Umphenour (“Defendant”). (Doc. 71.) On November 16, 2012, Defendant filed an opposition. 

On May 11, 2011, the Court dismissed all other claims and defendants from this action, based on Plaintiff’s

1

failure to state a claim. (Doc. 29.) The Doe defendants have not been sufficiently identified by Plaintiff to enable

service of process by the U.S. Marshal.

1

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 80 Filed 01/04/13 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

(Doc. 74.) On December 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 78.)

II. ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Plaintiff requests entry of default, pursuant to Rule 55, against Defendant Umphenour, based

on Defendant’s failure to timely answer or otherwise defend in this action.

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.

A defendant's default does not automaticallyentitle the plaintiff to a court-ordered judgment.

See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924–25 (9th Cir.1986). Rather, granting or denying relief is

entirely within the court's discretion. See id.

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.

Background

Plaintiff filed a prior request for entry of default or default judgment against defendant

Umphenour on October 4, 2011, which was denied by the Court. (Doc. 50, 66.) The Court found

that defendant Umphenour’s motion to dismiss, timely filed on October 6, 2011, was conclusive

evidence that defendant Umphenour had appeared in this action and was actively defending against

Plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. 66.) 

On September 21, 2012, the Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 70.) On

2

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 80 Filed 01/04/13 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

October 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant request for entry of default. (Doc. 71.) On October 29,

2012, Defendant filed an answer. (Doc. 72.) 

Discussion

Plaintiff argues that default should be entered because Defendant's answer was untimely

served under Rule 12(a)(4), which requires the answer to be served "within 14 days of the

notification" that the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4). Defendant

concedes that his answer was not timely served under Rule 12(a)(4), due to a calendaring error. The

answer, which was required to be served on or before September 26, 2012, was not served until 33

days later on October 29, 2012. (Doc. 72 at 7.) Defense counsel indicates that he will file a

declaration relating to the calendaring error, if the Court deems it necessary. (Opp'n, Doc. 74 at 2

fn.2.) Defendant argues that entry of default is inappropriate because he has clearly indicated his

intent to defend this action by filing a timelymotion to dismiss and inadvertently filing a late answer.

In this case, Defendant's thirty-three day delay in filing an answer does not merit entry of

default. Defendant's delay in filing an answer was due to a calendaring error, which the Court finds

to be excusable neglect, and Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay. By filing a motion to dismiss

and a delayed answer, Defendant has sufficiently indicated his intent to defend this action. "Cases

should be decided upon their merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. 

Therefore, Plaintiff's request for entry of default shall be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for entry of

default against defendant Umphenour, filed on October 26, 2012, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 4, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-01655-SAB Document 80 Filed 01/04/13 Page 3 of 3