Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02044/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02044-6/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

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

MARK S. SOKOLSKY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHRISTINE MATIVO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13-cv-02044 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO ENTER DEFAULT BE DENIED

[ECF No. 22]

Plaintiff Mark S. Sokolsky (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 

December 16, 2013. 

On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). He named 

the State of California, Christine Mativo, Rebecca Domrese, Audrey King, Alan Carlson, Brian 

Bowley, Marisa Bigot, Kamala Harris, and John/Jane Does 1 to 100 as Defendants. On July 27, 

2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s FAC and found that it stated the following claims: (1) 

violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion by Defendants Mativo, 

Domrese, King, Bowley, and Bigot; (2) violation of RLUIPA by Defendants Mativo, Domrese, 

King, Bowley, and Bigot; and (3) violation of Plaintiff’s substantive due process rights by 

Defendants King, Mativo, and Domrese for conditions of confinement. The Court ordered 

Case 1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA Document 23 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on 

these claims. On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wanted to proceed only on 

the cognizable claims identified above. Therefore, on August 18, 2015, the Court issued a 

Findings and Recommendation that the action proceed on the cognizable claims, and all other 

claims and defendants be dismissed. On September 14, 2015, the District Court adopted the 

Findings and Recommendation. Subsequently, on September 17, 2015, the Court issued an order 

directing the U.S. Marshal Service to initiate service of process on Plaintiff’s behalf. 

On December 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for entry of default. Plaintiff 

contends that Defendants have failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

In this case, the United States Marshal has been directed to initiate service of process on 

Plaintiff’s behalf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Pursuant to the Court’s order, the Marshals Service 

was directed to notify the Defendants of the commencement of the action and request a waiver of 

service. If a waiver of service is not returned by a Defendant within sixty days, the Marshals 

Service must then personally serve process upon the Defendants. There is no indication in this 

case that service of process has been effected upon Defendants, thereby triggering their 

obligation to respond to the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for 

default is premature. 

RECOMMENDATION

For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court recommends that Plaintiff's motion to enter 

default against Defendants be DENIED.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

(14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file 

written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Case 1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA Document 23 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-02044-LJO-GSA Document 23 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 3