Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00774/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00774-1/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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alfred E. Caraffa,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV 20-00774-PHX-MTL (ESW)

ORDER

On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff Alfred E. Caraffa, who is confined in a Maricopa 

County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Motion 

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an April 23, 2020 Order, the Court denied the deficient 

Motion to Proceed and gave Plaintiff thirty days to either pay the administrative and filing 

fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Combine Cases; Exhibits to Support 

Civil Action; a First Amended Complaint pursuant to § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and a second 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On May 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to 

Change Assignment of Judge(s).” In a May 11, 2020 Order, the Court denied the Motion 

to Change Assignment of Judges, granted the second Application to Proceed, denied the 

Motion to Combine Cases, dismissed the First Amended Complaint because Plaintiff had 

failed to state a claim, and gave Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint that cures 

the deficiencies identified in the Order.

Case 2:20-cv-00774-MTL--ESW Document 17 Filed 05/14/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “Motion of: Default Judgment Under rule 55(d) of 

Fed. Rule Civil Procedure and (local) Arizona Rules of Civil Proc. Rule 55(d)”1(Doc. 14), 

a “Motion to Support Motion of Default Judgment” (Doc. 15), and a “Motion to Combine” 

(Doc. 16).2

I. Motion of: Default Judgment

Before a default judgment may be entered, the Clerk of Court must first enter 

default. See VonGrabe v. Sprint PCS, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1318 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (“[A] 

plain reading of Rule 55 demonstrates that entry of default by the clerk is a prerequisite to 

an entry of default judgment.”). Because the Clerk of Court has not entered default in this 

case,3 Plaintiff is not entitled to a default judgment. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s 

“Motion of: Default Judgment.”

II. Motion to Support Motion for Default Judgment

In his Motion to Support Motion for Default Judgment, Plaintiff seeks to “support 

the action of Default Judgment.” As previously explained, Plaintiff is not entitled to a 

default judgment because he did not first obtain an entry of default from the Clerk of Court. 

Thus, the Court will deny as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Support.

III. Motion to Combine

In his Motion to Combine, Plaintiff seeks to combine this case, CV 20-00800-PHXMTL (ESW), and “another civil action mail[ed] on April 27[,] 2020,” because they “are all 

under [the] same issues clause of [the] Federal Rules [of] Civil Procedure[].” Plaintiff 

asserts that the complaint he mailed on April 27, 2020 “is combined issues with new issues 

1 The Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure are not applicable in this federal court.

2 Although these motions were filed on May 8, 2020, they were not docketed until 

May 11, 2020, and, therefore, the Court was unaware of them when it issued its May 11, 

2020 Order.

3 The Clerk of Court could not have entered default because the Clerk of Court can 

only enter default “[w]hen 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). Defendants have not been served or waived service and, therefore, 

were not required to respond to Plaintiff’s filings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a).

Case 2:20-cv-00774-MTL--ESW Document 17 Filed 05/14/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

of illegal confinement, delib[e]rate indifference, due process of law, abuse of power and 

abuse of authority issues[] and habeas corpus issues.”4 

Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part, that 

“[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . . 

consolidate the actions.” The Court has broad discretion when deciding a motion to 

consolidate under Rule 42(a). Investors Research Co. v. United States Dist. Ct. for Cent. 

Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Plaintiff appears to be filing repetitive lawsuits. However, an in forma pauperis 

complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be considered 

abusive and dismissed under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Cato v. United States, 

70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 

1988). An in forma pauperis complaint repeating the same factual allegations asserted in 

an earlier case, even if now filed against a new defendant, is subject to dismissal as 

duplicative and frivolous. See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. Thus, the Court, in its discretion, 

will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Combine. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion of: Default Judgment” (Doc. 14), 

“Motion to Support Motion of Default Judgment” (Doc. 15), and “Motion to 

Combine” (Doc. 16) are denied.

Dated this 14th day of May, 2020.

4

It appears the document Plaintiff mailed on April 27, 2020, is the First Amended 

Complaint in this case.

Case 2:20-cv-00774-MTL--ESW Document 17 Filed 05/14/20 Page 3 of 3