Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02270/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02270-5/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

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

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TIMOTHY LOCKWOOD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:10-cv-02270-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO ENTER DEFAULT AGAINST 

DEFENDANT MORA

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY 

OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

ECF No. 27

Plaintiff Larry Williams Cortinas (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is 

proceeding against Defendant Mora for violation of the Eighth Amendment and the Equal Protection 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On June 14, 2012, a waiver of service was returned as to 

Defendant Mora, with a responsive pleading deadline of May 11, 2012. As of the date of this order, 

Defendant has not filed a responsive pleading or otherwise responded. On August 1, 2012, Plaintiff 

moved for judgment against Defendant Mora. ECF No. 27. The Court construes the motion as a 

request for entry of default and default judgment against Defendant Mora. The matter is submitted 

pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or 

otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s 

default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Here, the return of the waiver of service indicates that Defendant 

Case 1:10-cv-02270-LJO-DLB Document 28 Filed 11/09/12 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

Mora received service of the complaint, but failed to file a responsive pleading. Defendant Mora has 

thus failed to plead or otherwise defend in this action. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is 

directed to enter default against Defendant Mora.

Plaintiff also requests judgment in the amount of five-hundred dollars, and court 

costs. This request is denied. “A party seeking a default judgment must state a claim upon which it 

may recover.” Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D. Cal. 

2003). “If the Plaintiff is seeking money damages, however, the Plaintiff must ‘prove-up’ its 

damages.” Amini Innovation Corp. v. KTY Intern. Marketing, 768 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053 (C.D. 

Cal. 2011). Damages are not admitted. Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 

1977). Factors that the Court may consider in determining whether to grant or deny an application 

for default judgment include

1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff's substantive 

claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum of money at stake in the 

action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the 

default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.3d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff has made no showing regarding 

proof of the damages. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment, filed August 1, 

2012, is denied, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2012 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:10-cv-02270-LJO-DLB Document 28 Filed 11/09/12 Page 2 of 2