Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529-8/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

JEFF HARNDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

VOGEL, KEENER, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 6529 REC LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF

DEFAULT (Doc. 57.) 

 Jeff Harnden (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On December 19, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Default against Defendants. 

Entry of default is appropriate as to any party against whom a judgment for affirmative

relief is sought that has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and where that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 55(a). Plaintiff is reminded that “[f]or good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of

default and, if a judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance

with Rule 60(b).” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 55(c). 

On July 28, 2005, this Court issued an Order finding claims cognizable against

Defendants Vogel, Kenner and Key. Plaintiff returned the USM 285 forms to the Court on

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 58 Filed 12/21/05 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

September 9, 2005. On September 29, 2005, the Court issued an Order directing the U.S.

Marshal to served Defendants in the action. To date, however, the U.S. Marshal has not yet

effected service as is evidenced by the lack of the USM 285 forms in the file. Thus, the

Defendants have not been served with the documents and are not yet required to submit a

responsive pleading under the rules. Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default is, therefore,

premature and will be DENIED as such. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Entry of DEFAULT is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 58 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 2