Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00507/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00507-16/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

Plaintiff Jerry Dillingham is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

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

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment, and motion 

for administrative relief, filed March 31, 2020, respectively. 

Plaintiff contends that entry of default is appropriate because Defendants have failed to 

file an answer to the operative complaint. (ECF No. 69.) By way of separate motion for 

administrative relief, Plaintiff requests the Court to advise whether an answer has been filed by 

Defendants. (ECF No. 70.) 

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants 

Emerson, Wilson, Wescoat, Velasco, Loftin, Martines, Marsh and Doe 1 for conditions of 

confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against Defendant Wescoat for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF No. 50.) 

JERRY DILLINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. EMERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00507-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND MOTION 

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

[ECF Nos. 69,70]

Case 1:18-cv-00507-AWI-SAB Document 71 Filed 04/02/20 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

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 failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

55(a). Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a defendant that 

has timely waived service under Rule 4(d) must respond “within 60 days after the request for a 

waiver was sent, or within 90 days after it was sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of 

the United States.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(ii). Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure requires the Clerk of the Court to enter default “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Here, Defendants filed an answer to the 

complaint on March 24, 2020, and entry of default is not appropriate and must be denied. To the 

extent Plaintiff seeks legal assistance from the Court, Plaintiff is advised Plaintiff is informed that 

the Court does not issue advisory opinions or provide legal advice. Pro se litigants are obligated 

to follow the same rules as represented parties, and that self-representation is not an excuse for 

noncompliance with court rules. Plaintiff is also advised that it is a pro se plaintiff’s 

responsibility to proceed in a manner consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the 

Court’s Local Rules, and the orders of this Court. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00507-AWI-SAB Document 71 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 2