Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00563/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00563-2/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

The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed a pleading asking for correction of the correction because the 1

recitation of the procedural history does not list all of the previous motions filed by the Defendants in the prior

Court. Such a recitation is not legally necessary, however, and any motions or requests made to that effect will be

denied.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PERRY A. MCCULLOUGH,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06 563 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT

(Doc. 18.) 

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Doc. 23.) 

ORDER RELIEVING DEFENDANTS FROM

HAVING TO FILE AN ANSWER AT THIS

STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS

 Perry A. McCullough (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for

violation of civil rights by federal actors. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 11, 2006, in the District of Columbia. The Case

was transferred to this Court and received on May 16, 2006.1

Case 1:06-cv-00563-AWI -GBC Document 24 Filed 12/14/06 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

On September 29, 2006, in ruling on a Motion to Amend the Complaint, the Court noted

that it did not appear that a responsive pleading had been filed by the Defendants. Based on this

language, Plaintiff moved for default judgment against the Defendants on October 17, 2006. 

Plaintiff submitted a pleading titled Motion for Order to Show Cause Where Clerk has failed to

Enter Judgment Required by law. (Doc. 23.) 

Entry of default 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 by the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and where that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 55(a). 

In this case, Plaintiff concedes in his Motion that the Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss

in this action which were ruled on by the Magistrate Judge hearing the case prior to its transfer to

this Court. Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion that default is warranted, Defendants have

clearly defended in this action and the entry of default must be denied. 

The Court’s reference to a responsive pleading in the previous Order concerned the

Defendants filing of an Answer. An Answer, however, is generally not required from the

Defendants until after such time as the Court has screened the case and determined that the

Complaint states a cognizable claim. Only then will the Court Order the U.S. Marshal to effect

service and an Answer be filed. Here, however, although the Complaint was served and a

Motion to Dismiss was filed by Defendants, the Court transferred the case to this Court without

conducting a preliminary screening of the case. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.

Case 1:06-cv-00563-AWI -GBC Document 24 Filed 12/14/06 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

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). As no Court has screened the case pursuant to § 1915A(a), the Court will

RELIEVE Defendants of their responsibility to file an Answer under the Rule 12(a)(4)(A) until

such time as the Court has screened the Complaint pursuant to Section 1915(A). Plaintiff’s

Motion for entry of Judgment by the Clerk of Court will be DENIED and the Motion for an

Order to Show Cause directed to the Clerk if Court is DISREGARDED. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Entry of Default is DENIED; 

2. The Motion for an Order to Show Cause is DISREGARDED; and

3. The Defendants are RELIEVED from having to file an Answer at this time. After

such time as the Court has conducted a screening of the case and should a

determination be made that the Complaint states cognizable claims, the Court will

DIRECT the Defendants to file an Answer as contemplated by the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00563-AWI -GBC Document 24 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 3