Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02574/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02574-15/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL M. COTTRELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2574 GEB EFB P

vs.

R.K. WONG, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On May 24, 2010, he filed a document entitled “Declaration for Entry of

Default.” Plaintiff asks the court to enter a default judgment against defendant C. Huston. 

According to plaintiff, Huston was served with the complaint on August 11, 2008, but failed to

respond within twenty days. 

The court has reviewed the docket for the action, which reveals that, as of October 6,

2008, plaintiff communicated to the court that he was unsure of whether defendant Huston had

been served. Dckt. Nos. 37, 38. Nothing on the Court’s docket indicates service on defendant

Huston prior to that time. On October 3, 2008, the other defendants (Wong, Cook, and Plainer)

moved for an extension of time to respond to the complaint. Dckt. No. 35. The court granted

defendants a thirty-day extension from October 8, 2008. Dckt. No. 39. All defendants,

Case 2:07-cv-02574-GEB-EFB Document 60 Filed 06/02/10 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

2

including Huston, then moved to dismiss the complaint on November 7, 2008. Dckt. No. 42. In

denying the motion in part as to defendant Huston, the court ordered her to answer the complaint

within thirty days from December 22, 2009. Dckt. No. 54. Huston timely sought clarification of

the Court’s order, which the Court construed as a motion for an extension of time. Dckt. Nos.

55, 57. The Court gave defendant Huston thirty days from April 21, 2010 to answer the

complaint, which Huston did on May 21, 2010. Dckt. Nos. 57, 58. Accordingly, the Court finds

that defendant Huston has not “failed to plead or otherwise defend” the action and that entry of

default judgment against her is not appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (stating that default

judgment may be entered against a party who has “failed to plead or otherwise defend”).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s May 24, 2010

“Declaration for Entry of Default,” construed as a motion for default judgment, be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

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

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: June 2, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-02574-GEB-EFB Document 60 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 2