Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01251/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01251-1/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

 Pursuant to the court’s order filed July 7, 2006, plaintiff is required to file and serve his 1

opposition to the motion as set forth in Local Rule 78-230(m). See Order filed July 7, 2006, at 3.

The same order provides detailed information concerning the requirements for opposing a motion

to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See id. at 3-4.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1251 GEB DAD P

vs.

VUONG M. DUC, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action. Plaintiff

has filed a motion for default judgment against defendants Duc, Nangalama, and Trent. Plaintiff

has also filed opposition to the answer filed by defendant Allen.

A plaintiff may seek judgment by default only if the defendants have been

defaulted for failure to appear. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Defendants Duc and Nangalama cannot be

defaulted for failure to appear because they have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims

against them. Defendant Trent cannot be defaulted for failure to appear because there is no 1

evidence that service has been effected on defendant Trent. Although on July 7, 2006 the court

Case 2:06-cv-01251-GEB-DAD Document 17 Filed 10/16/06 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

2

ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve all four defendants, the U.S. Marshal has not filed an executed

summons or a waiver of service of summons for defendant Trent. Plaintiff’s motion for default

judgment will be denied on the grounds that it is premature as to defendant Trent and lacks merit

as to defendants Duc and Nangalama.

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the pleadings in federal

civil cases. The rule provides as follows:

There shall be a complaint and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim

denominated as such; an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a

cross-claim; a third-party complaint, if a person who was not an original

party is summoned under the provisions of Rule 14; and a third-party

answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other pleading shall be

allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a thirdparty answer. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) (emphasis added). The court has not ordered plaintiff to file a reply to

defendant Allen’s answer and declines to make such an order. The unauthorized reply will be

disregarded.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s September 25, 2006 motion for default judgment is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s September 28, 2006 opposition to defendant Allen’s answer will be

disregarded.

DATED: October 13, 2006.

DAD:13

hern1251.77a+e

Case 2:06-cv-01251-GEB-DAD Document 17 Filed 10/16/06 Page 2 of 2