Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANGELA BACLAGON,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11-cv-00736-BAM 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 110)

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented to 

the jurisdiction of the undersigned for all proceedings in this action. (ECF No. 112.) 

On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment on the grounds that 

Defendant allegedly failed to comply with a court order to appear for a telephonic trial 

confirmation hearing on October 21, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 (LJO). (ECF No. 110.) 

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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 

After entry of default, the plaintiff can seek entry of default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1) 

and (2). “Default judgments are generally disfavored, and whenever it is reasonably possible, 

cases should be decided upon their merits.” In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 525 (9th Cir. 1991) 

(internal punctuation and citations omitted). 

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 113 Filed 10/29/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff is not entitled to a default judgment in this matter. Contrary to his assertions, 

Defendant, through counsel, appeared for the October 21, 2015 telephonic trial confirmation 

hearing at 8:00 a.m. In fact, it was Plaintiff who failed to appear at that hearing, and as a result 

the hearing was continued to October 22, 2015 at 7:45 a.m., (ECF No. 105), at which time both 

parties appeared for the hearing, (ECF No. 107). Since Defendant has not failed to defend this 

action or otherwise defaulted here, default judgment for Plaintiff is not appropriate. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment 

(ECF No. 110) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 29, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 113 Filed 10/29/15 Page 2 of 2