Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARIPOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT. 

et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER 

SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD 

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE OR FILE A MOTION FOR ENTRY 

OF DEFAULT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 

 Plaintiff Richard Charles Hanna, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this action on April 2, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and 

found that it stated cognizable claims against Defendants Mariposa County Sheriff Department, 

and Deputies Boehm, Rumfelt, Rameriz, and King. (ECF No. 13.) The Court ordered service of 

the complaint and on July 15, 2013, the summonses were returned by the United States Marshal 

showing that personal service had been effected on all defendants on May 16, 2013. (ECF No. 

32.) 

 Defendants’ response to the complaint was due within twenty-one days from the date of 

service of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). As of this date, no defendant has filed an 

answer or other pleading responsive to the complaint, nor has Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of 

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 36 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 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 

de

wh

en

IT

 

1 E

tw

20

ha

ma

de

rea

(in

efault pursua

Within

hy this actio

ntry of defau

Accord

1. 

2. 

T IS SO ORD

Dated: 

 

Error! Main D

o step process.

08). Entry of d

s failed to plea

ade to appear b

fault judgment

asonably possib

nternal punctua

ant to Federa

n thirty days 

n should not

ult. 

dingly, IT IS

Within thir

written resp

dismissed f

Plaintiff's f

this action 

DERED. 

August 23

 

Document Onl

. Yue v. Storag

default is appro

ad or otherwise

by affidavit or o

t. Fed. R. Civ. 

ble, cases shou

ation and citatio

al Rule of Ci

from the da

t be dismisse

S HEREBY O

rty days from

ponse to the 

for Plaintiff’

failure to com

be dismissed

3, 2013 

 

ly.Pursuant to F

ge Technology

opriate as to an

e defend as pro

otherwise. Fed

P. 55(b)(1) an

uld be decided 

ons omitted). 

2

vil Procedur

te of service

ed for Plaint

ORDERED 

m the date of

Court, show

s failure to p

mply with th

d. 

U

Federal Rules 

y Corp., No. 3:

ny party agains

vided by the F

d. R. Civ. P. 55

nd (2). “Defaul

upon their mer

re 55.1 

e of this orde

tiff’s failure 

that: 

f service of th

wing cause w

prosecute or

his order sha

_

UNITED ST

of Civil Proced

07-cv-05850, 2

st whom a judg

Federal Rules o

5(a). After ent

lt judgments ar

rits.” In re Ham

er, Plaintiff s

to prosecute

this order, Pl

why this actio

r a motion fo

all result in a

TATES MA

dure 55, obtain

2008 WL 3611

gment for affirm

of Civil Procedu

try of default, t

re generally di

mmer, 940 F.2

shall either s

e or file a mo

laintiff shall 

on should no

or entry of de

a recommend

GISTRATE

ning a default j

142, *2 (N.D.C

mative relief is

ure and where 

the plaintiff can

sfavored, and w

2d 524, (9th Cir

show cause 

otion for 

file a 

ot be 

efault; and

dation that 

_

E JUDGE 

udgment is a 

Cal. Feb, 11, 

s sought that 

that fact is 

n seek entry of

whenever it is 

r. 1991) 

f

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 36 Filed 08/23/13 Page 2 of 2