Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01931/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01931-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT G. BAKER

Plaintiff,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01931-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SET 

ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT

(ECF No. 19)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 7 & 10.) The action 

proceeds against Defendant Kitt on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment inadequate medical 

care claim. (ECF No. 11.)

On September 2, 2014, Defendant Kitt executed a waiver of service that had 

been sent August 28, 214. (ECF No. 14.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(a)(1)(A)(ii), his answer was due on October 27, 2014. No answer was filed. Plaintiff 

filed a request for entry of default (ECF No. 16) and a request for default judgment (ECF 

No. 15). On December 11, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for entry of default 

against Defendant Kitt, but denied his motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 17.) Default 

was entered the same day. (ECF No. 18.)

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 23 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Before the Court is Defendant’s December 22, 2014 motion to set aside the entry 

of default. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff filed no response, and the time for doing so has 

passed. This matter is deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A Court may set aside entry of default for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c). The 

good cause standard under Rule 55(c) is the same as that governing vacating a default 

judgment under Rule 60(b). Franchise Holding II, LLC v. Huntington Rests. Grp., Inc.,

375 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2004). “The court’s discretion is especially broad where, as 

here, it is an entry of default that is being set aside, rather than default judgment.” 

O’Connor v. Nevada, 27 F.3d 357, 364 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). To determine 

whether good cause exists, the Court must consider three factors: (1) whether the 

defaulting party engaged in culpable conduct leading to the default, (2) whether the 

defaulting party has a meritorious defense, and (3) whether reopening the default would 

prejudice the plaintiff. Franchise Holding, 375 F.3d at 926.

“[A] defendant’s conduct is culpable if he has received actual or constructive 

notice of the filing of the action and intentionally failed to answer.” Alan Neuman Prods., 

Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988). An intentional failure to respond 

denotes a willful, deliberate, or bad faith failure. TCI Grp. Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 

F.3d 691, 697-98 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled in part on other grounds by Egelhoff v. 

Egelhoff ex rel. Breiner, 532 U.S. 141 (2001). “Neglectful failure to answer as to which 

the defendant offers a credible, good faith explanation negating any intention to take 

advantage of the opposing party, interfere with judicial decisionmaking, or otherwise 

manipulate the legal process is not ‘intentional.’” Id.

“A defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment must present specific facts 

that would constitute a defense.” Id. at 700. Additionally, “[t]o be prejudicial, the setting 

aside of a judgment must result in greater harm than simply delaying resolution of the

case.” Id.

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 23 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 4
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

III. DISCUSSION

A. Defendant’s Arguments

Defendant states that, upon receipt of the summons and complaint, he asked his 

office manager to contact the medical group with which he worked, notify it of the lawsuit 

and ask that it provide him with a defense. Defendant’s office manager relayed the 

information to the medical group, and Defendant believed the group would defend him in 

this suit. Upon receipt of the notice of entry of default, he promptly contacted his 

malpractice insurance carrier and requested legal counsel. Accordingly, Defendant 

argues he did not act culpably in failing to respond.

Defendant further states that he has a meritorious defense to the action because 

he believes the complaint reflects nothing more than that he chose one of two or more 

appropriate treatments for Plaintiff’s medical condition and was not deliberately

indifferent to Plaintiff’s needs. He intends to obtain expert review and opinion evidence 

as to the treatment provided.

Finally, Defendant states that the only apparent prejudice would be a “theoretical” 

delay in the resolution of the case.

B. Analysis

Defendant has presented good cause for setting aside the entry of default against 

him. His failure to timely respond to the complaint appears to present a good faith 

mistake. Although arguably cavalier and certainly neglectful, the failure to respond does 

not reflect culpability. Defendant also has indicated an intent to present a meritorious 

defense supported by expert opinion and applicable law. The Court finds no prejudice to 

Plaintiff aside from the minimal delay in resolution of the action. Plaintiff, not having 

responded, has not presented any argument to the contrary.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause having been shown, Plaintiff’s motion to set aside entry of default 

(ECF No. 19) is HEREBY GRANTED. 

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 23 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

The Clerk of Court is instructed to set aside the default entered against Defendant 

Kitt. (ECF No. 18.) 

Defendant is HEREBY ORDERED to file an answer or responsive motion within 

fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01931-MJS Document 23 Filed 02/05/15 Page 4 of 4