Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05884/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05884-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

RAFAEL ANTONIO ESPINA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JESUS MAGALLANES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-05884 OWW LJO P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SPACK’S

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ENTRY OF

DEFAULT AND SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT

(Docs. 48 and 50)

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT SPACK

TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

On June 30, 2006, the Court issued an order requiring defendant Robert Spack, M.D.

(“defendant”) to file a response to plaintiff Espina’s(“plaintiff”) amended complaint within twenty

days or default would be entered against him. On August 1, 2006, after more than twenty days

passed and defendant did not comply with or otherwise responded to the Court’s order, the Court

directed the Clerk of the Court to enter default. On August 7, 2006, defendant filed a motion to set

aside entry of default. Plaintiff did not file a response. Local Rule 78-230(m).

Once default has been entered against a defendant, a court may, “[f]or good cause shown

 . . . set aside an entry of default . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). “The court’s discretion is especially

broad where, as here, it is entry of default that is being set aside, rather than default judgment.”

O’Connor v. State of Nevada, 27 F.3d 357, 364 (9th Cir. 1994)(quotingMendoza v. Wight Vineyard

Mgmt., 783 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 504 (9th

Cir. 2000). “‘Where timely relief is sought from a default . . . and the movant has a meritorious

defense, doubt, if any, should be resolved in favor of the motion to set aside the [default] so that

Case 1:04-cv-05884-LJO -LJO Document 51 Filed 09/05/06 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

2

cases may be decided on their merits.’” Mendoza, 783 F.2d at 945-46 (quoting Schwab v. Bullock’s,

Inc., 508 F.2d 353, 355 (9th Cir. 1974) (internal quotations and citation omitted)). 

In this instance, defendant Spack did not understand upon receiving and signing the waiver

that any further action was required. (Doc. 50, Spack Dec., ¶4.) Immediately upon receiving the

Court’s order directing him to file a response, defendant forwarded the order via facsimile machine

to the human resources department at Taft Correctional Institution (“TCI”) and spoke via telephone

to Ed Ochoa, Executive Assistant at TCI. (Id., ¶¶5, 6.) Defendant was assured that the order would

be forwarded to the corporate office and handled on defendant’s behalf. (Id., ¶6.) Defendant

believed that a response to the order would be filed by the deadline set in the order. (Id.) On August

3, 2006, immediately after receiving the Court’s order directing entry of default filed on August 1,

2006, defendant contacted corporate headquarters and was subsequently advised that counsel had

been retained for him. (Id.) That day, counsel was retained for defendant. (Doc. 50, Kellar Dec.,

¶4.)

The Court finds that defendant has shown good cause for his failure to timely respond to

plaintiff’s amended complaint. Defendant mistakenly believed no further response was due after

waiving service, and upon receipt of the Court’s order immediately took action by contacting TCI.

After believing no further action was necessary upon reassurance that the situation would be handled

on his behalf, defendant immediately contacted corporate headquarters upon receipt of the order

entering default. Counsel was retained that day for defendant, and the instant motion to set aside

default was filed by counsel less than one week after retainer. There is no prejudice to plaintiff and

the Court cannot find that defendant does not have a meritorious defense. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Spack’s motion to set aside the entry of default against him, filed August

7, 2006, is GRANTED;

2. Entry of default is set aside;

3. Defendant Spack shall file a response to plaintiff’s amended complaint within twenty

(20) days from the date of service of this order; and

///

Case 1:04-cv-05884-LJO -LJO Document 51 Filed 09/05/06 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

3

4. The failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 1, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05884-LJO -LJO Document 51 Filed 09/05/06 Page 3 of 3