Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00582/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00582-1/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

1 06cv582-BEN(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

G.J. GIURBINO, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.06cv582-BEN(NLS)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

[Doc. No. 12]

On March 17, 2006, Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison located

in Imperial, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief

could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). See May 31, 2006 Order at 6, Doc.

No. 4. Plaintiff was granted forty five days to file a First Amended Complaint correcting the

deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. On July 11, 2006, Plaintiff filed his First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”) [Doc. No. 6].

On November 8, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment [Doc. No. 12], requesting

that the Court enter a judgment of default in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. However, on

December 13, 2006, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s FAC for once again failing to state a section 1983

claim upon which relief may be granted. See December 13, 2006 Order at 5, Doc. No. 13. Plaintiff was

granted forty five days to file a Second Amended Complaint. Id. 

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-00582-BEN-NLS Document 15 Filed 12/29/06 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 06cv582-BEN(NLS)

Because Plaintiff’s FAC has been dismissed in its entirety, and no responsive pleading is

required of Defendants at this time, Plaintiff cannot meet the threshold procedural requirements for

entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for

Default Judgment is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 29, 2006

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00582-BEN-NLS Document 15 Filed 12/29/06 Page 2 of 2