Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01966/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01966-5/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

DION ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

L. CAHLANDER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12-cv-01966 LJO DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO ENTER DEFAULT BE DENIED

[ECF No. 25]

Plaintiff Dion Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner 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 3, 2012. 

On June 7, 2013, the Court dismissed the complaint and granted Plaintiff leave to file a 

First Amended Complaint. On August 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. On 

July 10, 2014, he filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and lodged the 

proposed Second Amended Complaint. On August 25, 2014, the Court granted the motion to file 

a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint is currently pending screening 

by the Court. 

On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for entry of default. Plaintiff 

contends that Defendants have neither filed an answer, extension of time, or entered the 

Case 1:12-cv-01966-LJO-DLB Document 26 Filed 10/20/14 Page 1 of 2
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

appearance of an attorney within the time deadline. Plaintiff is advised that service of process 

has not yet been effected on Defendants, triggering their obligation to respond to his complaint. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). In this case, the United States Marshal will be directed to initiate service of 

process on Plaintiff’s behalf when the Court has determined that Plaintiff’s complaint states 

cognizable claims for relief and service is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(c)(2). The Court has not yet screened the Second Amended Complaint. Therefore, service is 

not yet appropriate. 

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 

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: October 17, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01966-LJO-DLB Document 26 Filed 10/20/14 Page 2 of 2