Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00086/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00086-13/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

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00086-OWW-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF

DEFAULT

(Doc. 71)

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 7, 2007, plaintiff

filed a motion seeking the entry of default against defendants Diggs, L’Etoile, Garcia, Williams,

Madreno, and Canton. 

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). As plaintiff has already been advised by this court, on June 1, 2007, the court issued an

order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service. Until defendants have either waived

service and failed to respond within sixty days or been personally served and failed to respond

within twenty days, they are not in default and plaintiff is not entitled to entry of default.

In this instance, defendant Diggs waived service. Doc. 64. However, his response is not

due until September 27, 2007. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), 6(e); Doc. 64. The other five defendants

///

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 73 Filed 09/11/07 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

 Defendants L’Etoile, Williams, and Madreno. 1

 Defendants Canton and Garcia. Docs. 69, 70. 2

2

have not waived service and have not been personally served. Plaintiff is not entitled to entry of

default against any of these six defendants, and his motion shall be denied. 

Plaintiff’s assertion that the Marshal failed to return individual USM forms for each

defendant is without merit. For those defendants for whom there are not yet returns of service in

the record, service is still in process. Plaintiff may not assume they have been served and he is 1

entitled to entry of default. The court will address those defendants whom the Marshal was not

able to locate in due course. 

2

Plaintiff’s motion seeking the entry of default, filed September 7, 2007, is HEREBY

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 10, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00086-OWW -GSA Document 73 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 2