Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00376/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00376-8/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

BENJAMIN JUSTIN BROWNLEE

Plaintiff,

v.

J. BURNES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00376-JLT-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 

DEFAULT

(Doc. No. 41)

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

(Doc. No. 42)

Plaintiff Benjamin Justin Brownlee is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as screened under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A. (Doc. Nos. 10, 18). On July 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default 

judgment. (Doc. No. 41). Plaintiff claims that Defendants Burnes, Rivera, Rodriguez, and Flores 

have failed to timely respond to his First Amended Complaint, and he therefore seeks a default 

judgment. (Id. at 1). Also pending is Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ First Amended 

Answer, filed on July 23, 2024. (Doc. No. 42). For reasons set forth below, the Court will deny 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default and disregard Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Answer.

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Entry of default by the Clerk of Court is appropriate as to any party against whom a 

judgment for affirmative relief is sought that has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided 

Case 1:23-cv-00376-JLT-HBK Document 43 Filed 07/25/24 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

2

by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and where that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). The entry of default by the Clerk is a prerequisite for an entry of 

judgment upon that default. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Procedurally, no default was entered by the 

Clerk in this case. See docket. Thus, no default judgment may be entered. Further, contrary to 

Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendants Burnes, Rivera, Rodriguez, and Flores timely filed an Answer to 

his operative Complaint. (Doc. No. 39). Thus, the Clerk properly withheld entry of default. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 55(a). 

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate a reply to an answer only when ordered

by the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(C). Plaintiff filed a 

response to Defendants’ Answer on July 23, 2024. However, since Plaintiff here was not ordered

to reply to the Answer, his reply will be disregarded. See, e.g., King v. Valley State Prison, 2022 

WL 1190457, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2022).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED.

2. The Court DISREGARDS Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Answer (Doc. No. 42).

Dated: July 25, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00376-JLT-HBK Document 43 Filed 07/25/24 Page 2 of 2