Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02097/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02097-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY MERINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTOPHER HITE, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-2097 JSW (EMC)

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING AND/OR EVIDENCE

Plaintiff Anthony Merino has filed a motion for default judgment, which was referred to the

undersigned for a report and recommendation. Having reviewed Mr. Merino’s brief and

accompanying submissions, the Court hereby orders that Mr. Merino provide supplemental briefing

and/or evidence.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs defaults. Under the rule, default “encompasses

two steps: the entry of the default and the subsequent entry of a default judgment.” 10-55 Moore’s

Fed. Prac. -- Civ. § 55.10[1] (emphasis added). In the instant case, there has been no entry of

default. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Mr. Merino has not asked for such relief from the Court. 

Because there has been no entry of default in the instant case, there can be no entry of default

judgment. 

Assuming, however, that Mr. Merino’s pending motion is a request for entry of default (as

well as a request for entry of default judgment), Mr. Merino has not presented sufficient evidence

demonstrating that he is entitled to default or default judgment. Entry of either a default or default

judgment requires, inter alia, that the defendant(s) in the case be properly served. See, e.g., Board

Case 3:07-cv-02097-JSW Document 15 Filed 07/13/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of Trustees of the N. Cal. Sheet Metal Workers v. Peters, No. C-00-0395 VRW, 2000 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 19065, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2001) (noting that a court must first “assess the adequacy of

the service of process on the party against whom default is requested”). Mr. Merino has not

provided any evidence establishing service of the summons and complaint on Defendants. The

Court therefore orders Mr. Merino to file with the Court, and serve on Defendants, evidence

demonstrating that each Defendant was served with the summons and complaint in accordance with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) (addressing service of process of

summons and complaint on individuals).

Mr. Merino must file and serve the supplemental evidence by July 25, 2007. In

addition, Mr. Merino must serve a copy of this order on all Defendants by the same date.

The Court forewarns Mr. Merino that, even if Defendants were properly served, that does not

necessarily entitle him to a default and default judgment. In deciding whether a default judgment is

warranted, a court must consider several factors:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of

plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4)

the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the possibility of a dispute

concerning material facts, (6) whether the default was due to

excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Under the second and third factors, a

court evaluates whether a plaintiff has adequately stated a claim on which he or she may recover. 

See Pepsico, Inc. v. Cal. Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1175 (C.D. Cal. 2002). 

Based on this Court’s review of Mr. Merino’s complaint, there appear to be serious problems

with his case. For example, Younger abstention may well be a bar to his lawsuit if the state criminal

proceeding against him is still ongoing. See Confederated Salish v. Simonich, 29 F.3d 1398, 1405

(9th Cir. 1994) (explaining that “Younger abstention is proper where (1) there are ongoing state

judicial proceedings, (2) that implicate important state interests, and (3) there is an adequate

opportunity in the state proceedings to raise federal questions.”); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d

965, 979-81 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that “Younger principles may apply to claims for damages under

§ 1983,” although in such a case a court should stay the federal action -- instead of dismissing it

Case 3:07-cv-02097-JSW Document 15 Filed 07/13/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

outright -- until such time as the state proceeding is no longer pending). Even if Younger abstention

did not apply, certain of Mr. Merino’s claims may be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,

486-87 (1994) (holding that, “when a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court

must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of

his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can

demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”). In addition, it is not

clear that the claims against the public defenders are valid based on Polk County v. Dodson, 454

U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (holding that “a public defender does not act under color of state law [for

purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983] when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a

defendant in a criminal proceeding”). As for the claims against the prosecutors, they are likely

immune from suit. See, e.g., Milstein v. Cooley, 257 F.3d 1004, 1008-09 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[I]n

initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit

for damages under § 1983. This immunity covers the knowing use of false testimony at trial, the

suppression of exculpatory evidence, and malicious prosecution [because] these activities are

intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2007

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02097-JSW Document 15 Filed 07/13/07 Page 3 of 3