Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313-7/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

WILLIE D. RANDLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 6313 REC SMS P 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR DEFAULT

(Doc. 31.) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE

ANSWER IN EXCESS OF TIME (Doc. 34-2) 

Willie D. Randle is (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

On June 30, 2005, Defendants requested the Court conduct a screening of the case under

Section 1915A. The Court denied Defendants request on August 2, 2005, and noted that

Defendants responsive pleading was due within the time frame allotted by the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. 

On July 15, 2005, Plaintiff filed a “Declaration Requesting the Entry of Default.” (Doc.

33.) In this document, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to submit a timely responsive

pleading. On September 28, 2005, Defendants filed an Opposition to the Motion for Entry of

Default and also requested permission to file their Answer out of time. Counsel for Defendant

states that beginning July 15, 2005, he was out of the office and underwent surgery on July 18,

2005. Counsel was expected to return within four to six weeks but experienced complications,

including a pulmonary embolism, which further delayed his return to the office until September

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 12/15/05 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

19, 2005. Upon the discovery that no Answer had been filed by relief staff during Counsel’s

absence, Counsel immediately prepared the necessary Opposition, Motion and Answer. The

Answer to the Complaint was filed that same day. 

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). 

Based on the above, the Court finds good cause for denying the Motion to Default. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Request for Entry of Default is DENIED;

2. The Motion for permission to file the Answer out of time is GRANTED nunc pro

tunc, to and including September 28, 2005, the date the Answer was submitted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 41 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2