Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00600-10/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY W. BURY,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMY BRADISH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00600-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST

DEFENDANT BRADISH IN THE AMOUNT

OF $1,700,000.00, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 15)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SERVE COPY OF ORDER ON DEFENDANT

BRADISH AT ADDRESS TO BE KEPT

CONFIDENTIAL

Plaintiff Larry W. Bury (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on

plaintiff’s original complaint, filed May 4, 2005, against defendants Bradish and Rascoe for acting

with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. Defendants Bradish and Rascoe waived service of summons but failed to make

appearances in this action. Default was entered against defendant Bradish on June 9, 2006, and

against defendant Rascoe on July 3, 2006. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Pending before the Court is

plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendant Bradish in the amount of $1,700,000.00,

///

Case 1:05-cv-00600-LJO -GSA Document 39 Filed 11/16/06 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

27

28 In a separate order, the Court granted defendant Rascoe’s motion to set aside entry of default and denied 1

plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.

2

filed June 8, 2006. Defendant Bradish was served with the motion by the Court on September 28, 1

2006, and has not filed a response. Local Rule 78-230(m).

The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s motion and it provides no basis for the judgment sought

by plaintiff. Entry of default against a defendant does not translate into entitlement to the judgment

sought by a plaintiff. Plaintiff’s motion is not accompanied by any evidence pertaining to the

$1,700,000.00 plaintiff is seeking.

Further, both defendants are similarly situated in this action in that they both stand accused

by plaintiff of misappropriating his medication from January 1, 2002 through December 30, 2002.

As such, it would be inappropriate to enter default judgment against defendant Bradish at this

juncture while the action is still proceeding against defendant Rascoe. See In re First T. D.& Invest.,

Inc., 253 F.3d 520, 532 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff may renew his motion when these proceedings

have been resolved with respect to his claim against defendant Rascoe. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendant Bradish, filed June

8, 2006, is HEREBY DENIED, without prejudice. The Clerk’s Office SHALL serve a copy of this

order on defendant Bradish at the address provided separately by the Court and to be kept

confidential.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00600-LJO -GSA Document 39 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2