Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401-7/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

ISAIAH J. PETILLO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNALDO JASSO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01401-JLT-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

(ECF No. 30)

Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to entry of default, filed September 9,

2022. Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides, “[w]hen 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). Before 

a default will be entered, the clerk must be satisfied from the request and accompanying 

documentation that: 1) the defendant has been served with the summons or has agreed to waive 

serve; 2) the time allowed by law for responding has expired; and 3) the defendant has failed to 

file a pleading or motion permitted by law. U.S. ex rel. Felix Haro Const., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire

and Marine Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1770156, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2009) (citing Hawaii

Carpenters’ Trust Funds v. Stone, 794 F.2d 508, 512 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also Chambers v. 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 31 Filed 09/12/22 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

Knight, 2019 WL 1923936, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2019) (“A default may not enter against a 

defendant unless the plaintiff has properly served the defendant.”).

Here, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on November 29, 2021. (ECF No. 

10.) On January 3, 2022, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 14.) 

Defendants filed two motions to extend the deadline to file an exhaustion motion for summary 

judgment which were granted, and the deadline to file such motion expired on August 29, 2022.

Plaintiff seeks entry of default on the ground that Defendants did not file an exhaustion related 

motion for summary judgment. Under the law, Plaintiff’s request is not justified nor does 

Plaintiff provide legal authority as to why such a request is legally appropriate. Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied. Plaintiff is advised that the Defendants may, but are not 

required to, file an exhaustion-related or merits-related motion for summary judgment, and the 

current deadline to file a dispositive motion for summary judgment expires on November 14, 

2022. (ECF No. 14.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to entry of default is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2022 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 31 Filed 09/12/22 Page 2 of 2