Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06814/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06814-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDEN ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. JACKSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-06814-HSG 

ORER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT; SUA SPONTE 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO OPPOSE 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

Re: Dkt. No. 32

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison – Solano, filed this pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Alameda County deputy Jackson used excessive force on 

him when he was previously housed as a pretrial detainee at Santa Rita County Jail. Plaintiff 

states that default has been entered against defendant Jackson for failure to appear1and requests 

that the Court enter default judgment against defendant Jackson. Dkt. No. 32. 

On January 30, 2019, the Court issued a summons to defendant Jackson. Dkt. No. 12. On 

February 5, 2019, the Court received the executed summons, indicating that defendant W.A. 

Cohen had been served on February 4, 2019. Dkt. No. 15. On April 23, 2019, defendant Jackson, 

represented by counsel, appeared in this case by filing a motion requesting an extension of time to 

file his dispositive motion. Dkt. No. 17. The Court granted this extension of time, and later 

granted a second extension of time. Dkt. Nos. 18, 23. On August 27, 2019, defendant Jackson 

filed the summary judgment motion that is now pending before the Court. Dkt. No. 24. On 

January 22, 2020, after the pending request for default judgment was filed, defendant Jackson filed 

1 The Court presumes that plaintiff’s allegation that defendant Jackson failed to “appeal” (Dkt. No. 

32 at 2) was a typographical error and that plaintiff seeks default judgment based on defendant 

Jackson’s alleged failure to appear. 

Case 4:18-cv-06814-HSG Document 35 Filed 02/03/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

a waiver of reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e), stating that because the Court’s January 29, 

2019 Order of Service did not require defendant Jackson to file a reply or answer, defendant 

Jackson instead complied with the dispositive motion deadline set forth in the order. Dkt. No. 33. 

Entry of default generally establishes a defendant’s liability. The Court has the discretion 

to deny entry of default judgment. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). At the 

present time, defendant Jackson has appeared and has filed a waiver of reply. Plaintiff has failed 

to demonstrate any prejudice from defendant Jackson’s late filing of his waiver of reply. See Eitel 

v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth factors to be considered in

exercising discretion to enter default judgment); see also Lau Ah Yew v. Dulles, 236 F.2d 415, 416 

(9th Cir. 1956) (upholding denial of motion for entry of default judgment where answer was not 

timely). Because plaintiff does not explain how he was prejudiced because of defendant Jackson’s

delay in responding, and because the Court recognizes the policy that “[c]ases should be decided 

upon their merits whenever reasonably possible,” plaintiff’s request for the entry of a default 

judgment is DENIED. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472.

The Court notes that plaintiff has not filed his opposition to the pending summary 

judgment motion, and the deadline to do so has passed. The Court has granted plaintiff two 

extensions of time to January 7, 2020 to file his opposition. Dkt Nos. 28, 30. The Court will sua 

sponte grant plaintiff an extension of time to February 7, 2020 to file his opposition. No further 

extensions of time will be granted to plaintiff without a showing of good cause.

This order terminates Dkt. No. 32.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/3/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-06814-HSG Document 35 Filed 02/03/20 Page 2 of 2