Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02887/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02887-1/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

1.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Candelario Hernandez, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph Arpaio, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2887-PHX-NVW (LOA)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

This matter arises on Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default to which

Plaintiff has not responded. (Docket #13) 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on September 21, 2005. (Docket #1) On March 1, 2006,

the Court ordered service on Defendant Arpaio and ordered Plaintiff to file a completed service

packet within twenty days of the date of that order. (Docket #3) Plaintiff complied with the

Court's Order and on March 27, 2006, the Marshals Service sent a waiver of service request to

Defendant. On March 31, 2006, the legal liaison at the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, an

employee of the Defendant who was an authorized agent to accept service, signed the waiver.

(Docket #5) On July 14, 2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this matter should

not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to

prosecute based on Plaintiff's failure to take any action in this matter since filing his complaint,

including moving for entry of default. (Docket #7) In response, on August 14, 2006, Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-02887-NVW-LOA Document 17 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

requested that the Clerk enter default against Defendant. (Docket #9) The Clerk of Court

entered default on August 15, 2006. (Docket #12) Defendant now moves to set aside the entry

of default. (Docket #13)

ANALYSIS

Under Rule 55(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., an entry of default may be set aside upon a

showing of good cause. In determining whether "good cause" exists the court considers three

factors: (1) whether the defendant's culpable conduct led to the default; (2) whether the

defendant has a meritorious defense; and (3) whether setting aside the entry of default would

prejudice the plaintiff. TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir.

2001), overruled on other grounds by Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex rel. Breiner, 532 U.S. 141 (2001).

This "good cause" standard is applied less rigorously in a motion to set aside an entry of default

under Rule 55(c) than it is on consideration of a motion to set aside a default judgment under

Rule 60(b). The Court will consider these factors below. 

I. Culpability

"[A] defendant's conduct is culpable if he has received actual or constructive

notice of the filing of the action and intentionally failed to answer." Id. at 697 (emphasis in

original). Intentional has been defined as "willful, deliberate, or evidence of bad faith." Id. In

this case, Defendant's conduct is not culpable because there is no evidence that Defendant

willfully or deliberately failed to answer or any evidence of bad faith. First, although the legal

liaison at the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office received the complaint, Defendant claims that

the complaint was not forwarded to the County Attorney's office for a response. (Docket #13,

Exh. 1) The record indicates that the Complaint was misplaced or lost after it was delivered

to the legal liaison at the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Defendant explains that the

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has a procedure in place for forwarding complaints to the

County Attorney and in the 416 separate lawsuits that have been received by the Maricopa

County Sheriff's Office this year, the instant action is the only one in which a default has been

entered. (Docket #13 at 4) It appears that Defendant's failure to timely respond to the

Case 2:05-cv-02887-NVW-LOA Document 17 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 4
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 -

complaint was simply the result of an administrative mistake which does not constitute culpable

conduct.

II. Whether Defendant Has a Meritorious Defense

The Court will next consider whether Defendant has presented a meritorious

defense to Plaintiff's claims. "A defendant seeking to vacate a default . . . must present specific

facts that would constitute a defense," although "the burden on a party seeking to vacate a

default . . . is not extraordinarily heavy." Id. at 700. Here, Defendant has a meritorious defense

to the Plaintiff's complaint. Defendant first alleges, and Plaintiff admits, that Plaintiff did not

exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing the complaint, which is required by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a). Second, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Eighth

Amendment because Plaintiff does not allege facts demonstrating an unnecessary and wanton

infliction of pain, or actions lacking penological justification which resulted in a gratuitous

infliction of suffering. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). Third, Defendant

alleges that the harm that Plaintiff alleges, the fear of contracting surface transmitted diseases,

a fear of serious infections, and weight loss due to nausea from a bleach smell during meals, is

not substantial harm and that a failure to allege real and substantial harm is a meritorious

defense. Defendant offers three potentially meritorious defenses, which weigh in favor of

vacating the entry of default.

III. Whether Setting Aside Default will Prejudice Plaintiff

Finally, the Court will consider whether setting aside the entry of default will

prejudice Plaintiff. To establish prejudice sufficient to defeat a motion to set aside entry of

default, Plaintiff must show that his "ability to pursue his claim [has been] hindered." TCI

Group Life Ins. Plan, 244 F.3d at 701. The sort of harm that is considered prejudicial includes

the "loss of evidence, increased difficulties of discovery, or [a] greater opportunity for fraud or

collusion." Thompson v. American Home Assur. Co., 95 F.3d 429, 433-34 (6th Cir. 1996).

"[B]eing forced to litigate on the merits" is not prejudicial for purposes of setting aside the entry

of default. TCI Group Life Ins. Plan, 244 F.3d at 701. Setting aside the entry of default in this

case will not prejudice Plaintiff. Default was only recently entered and Defendant promptly

Case 2:05-cv-02887-NVW-LOA Document 17 Filed 09/25/06 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

moved to set aside the entry of default. Setting aside default will merely allow this case to be

considered on the merits.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Entry

of Default (Docket #13) be GRANTED and that the Clerk of Court set aside the entry of

default.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court=s judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Rules 72,

6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within which

to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's

Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation

by the District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna- Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party=s right to appellate review of the

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge=s

recommendation. See, Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 22nd day of September, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02887-NVW-LOA Document 17 Filed 09/25/06 Page 4 of 4