Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736-33/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANGELA BACLAGON,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11-cv-00736-BAM 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(ECF No. 129)

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have consented 

magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. (ECF No. 112.) Currently before the Court is 

Plaintiff’s December 24, 2015 motion for an entry of default against Defendant Baclagon, based 

on Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for discovery. (ECF No. 129.) 

Entry of default is appropriate as to any party against whom a judgment for affirmative 

relief is sought that has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure and where that fact is made to appear by affidavit or otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

55(a). After entry of default, the plaintiff can seek entry of default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

55(b)(1) and (2). “Default judgments are generally disfavored, and whenever it is reasonably 

possible, cases should be decided upon their merits.” In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 525 (9th Cir. 

1991) (internal punctuation and citations omitted). 

///

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 130 Filed 12/29/15 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

Plaintiff is not entitled to a default judgment in this matter. When Defendant did not 

respond to Plaintiff’s motion for discovery within the time permitted, the Court deemed the 

motion submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), and decided its merits. Based on Plaintiff’s 

unchallenged assertions and the Court’s review of the record, the Court ordered certain relief for 

Plaintiff as sought in his motion. (ECF No. 120.) That was all the relief Plaintiff was entitled to; 

Defendant’s failure to respond to a non-dispositive discovery motion does not amount to a failure 

to defend this action. Furthermore, although Defendant did not challenge Plaintiff’s discovery 

motion, Defendant has otherwise defended this action, including by recently filing pretrial 

documents in accordance with this Court’s pretrial order. (ECF Nos. 122-127.) Since Defendant 

has not failed to defend this action or otherwise defaulted here, entry of default against her is not 

appropriate. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment 

(ECF No. 129) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 29, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 130 Filed 12/29/15 Page 2 of 2