Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01206/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01206-11/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

 Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant Diggs from this action was granted by order 1

filed March 3, 2006.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JACKSON KITCHENS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1206 MCE PAN P

vs.

PAT HOUGE, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is an individual serving a term of civil commitment pursuant to

California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 6600 et seq. On October 27,

2005, plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default and a motion styled as a motion for summary

judgment which the court construes as a motion for default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

55. Plaintiff seeks entry of default and default judgment against all defendants in this action

except defendant Diggs on the ground that they have failed to answer or otherwise respond to the

complaint. 

1

On April 27, 2005, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve process

on defendants Diggs, Parisi, Mayberg, Daly, Houge, Coles and Goldberg. On August 24, 2005,

defendants Daly, Houge, Coles and Goldberg filed an answer to the complaint. For that reason,

Case 2:04-cv-01206-MCE -EFB Document 56 Filed 05/31/06 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 The court has recommended dismissal of defendant Parisi pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 2

4(m).

2

neither entry of default nor default judgment is proper as to those defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

55. There is no evidence in the record that defendant Mayberg has been served with process, and

the record affirmatively reflects that defendant Parisi has not been served with process. Absent 2

proof of such service neither entry of default nor default judgment is proper as to these two

defendants. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October

27, 2005 motion for entry of default is denied; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s October 27, 2005 motion for

summary judgment be construed as a motion for default judgment and, so construed, that said

motion be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: May 30, 2006.

12

kitc1206.def

Case 2:04-cv-01206-MCE -EFB Document 56 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2