Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00265/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00265-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOFOFORA EVA CONTRERAZ also

known as Mike Contreraz, 

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv265 - IEG (PCL)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT;

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR

FINDING OF CONTEMPT; AND

(3) DENYING MOTION FOR

ENFORCEMENT OF RELIEF

AGAINST NON-PARTIES

[Doc. No. 23]

vs.

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary of the USDI; M.

SHARON BLACKWELL, Deputy

Commissioner of Indian Affairs; DOE 1,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy

and Economic Development; and DOES 1-

10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 55, motion for a finding of contempt pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 70(e), and motion for enforcement of relief against non-parties pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 71. [Doc. No. 23.] For the reasons below, the Court DENIES the motions.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants on February 7, 2011. [Doc. No. 1.] 

On June 9, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed

Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice pursuant to the screening provision of 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B). [Doc. No. 8.] The Court gave Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint

- 1 - 11cv265

Case 3:11-cv-00265-GPC-PCL Document 24 Filed 01/30/12 Page 1 of 3
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

(“FAC”). [Id.] On July 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed her FAC. [Doc. No. 9.] On October 13, 2011, the

Court issued an order directing the U.S. Marshal to effect service of Plaintiff’s FAC on the

Defendants. [Doc. No. 14.] On January 20, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

FAC. [Doc. No. 19.]

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Default Judgment

Plaintiff moves for default judgment against Defendants, arguing that none of the

Defendants have answered, appeared, or otherwise replied to Plaintiff’s FAC. [Doc. No. 23 at 2.] 

Plaintiff is not entitled to default judgment. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an

entry of default by the Clerk of Court is a prerequisite to an entry of default judgment. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 55(a), (b). In this case, a review of the docket reveals that the Clerk of Court never entered

a default against any of Defendants. Accordingly, because there has been no entry of default yet,

the Court cannot enter a default judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.

Moreover, even if the Clerk of Court should have construed Plaintiff’s filing as a request to

enter default, the Clerk of Court properly did not enter default because Defendants are not in

default. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(2), a United States officer or employee must

serve a response pleading within 60 days after service on the United States attorney. Defendants

were served on October 31, 2011, [Doc. No. 17], making their response to the FAC due by

December 30, 2011. On December 28, 2011, Defendants moved for an extension of time to

respond to the FAC. [Doc. No. 17.] The Court granted Defendants’ motion and ordered

Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s FAC on or before January 20, 2012. [Doc. No. 18.] On

January 20, 2012, Defendants timely responded to Plaintiff’s FAC by filing a motion to dismiss

the FAC. [Doc. No. 19.] Accordingly, Defendants have never been in default, and the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.

II. Motion for Contempt

Plaintiff requests that this Court find Defendants to be in contempt pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 70(e) for failure to timely respond to her FAC. [Doc. No. 23 at 2-3.] 

First, as explained above, Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s FAC was not untimely. Second,

- 2 - 11cv265

Case 3:11-cv-00265-GPC-PCL Document 24 Filed 01/30/12 Page 2 of 3
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

Rule 70 “cannot be used as the authority for contempt or sanctions where defendants failed to

answer on time.” McCabe v. Arave, 827 F.2d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 1987). Rule 70 is only operative

when a party refuses to comply with a judgment. Id. Here, there has been no judgment, so Rule

70 does not apply. District courts do have the power to impose sanctions by exercising their

inherent powers upon a finding of bad faith. Id. at 640. However, because Defendants timely

responded to Plaintiff’s FAC, the Defendants have not acted in bad faith. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a finding of contempt.

III. Motion for Enforcement of Relief Against Non-Parties

Plaintiff moves for enforcement of relief against non-parties Wells Fargo & Co. and the

Pala Band of Mission Indians pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71. [Doc. No. 23 at 2.] 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71 provides: “When an order grants relief for a nonparty or may

be enforced against a nonparty, the procedure for enforcing the order is the same as for a party.” 

Rule 71 memorializes “the common sense rule that courts can enforce their orders against both

parties and non-parties.” Westlake North Property Owners Ass’n v. Thousand Oaks, 915 F.2d

1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1990). Because the Court does not grant Plaintiff’s motion for default

judgment, there is no order that may be enforced against the non-parties. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for enforcement of relief against non-parties.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, motion

for finding of contempt, and motion for enforcement of relief against non-parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2012 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv265

______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

Case 3:11-cv-00265-GPC-PCL Document 24 Filed 01/30/12 Page 3 of 3