Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00392-7/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

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

Luis Manuel Garces asserts he suffered violations of his civil rights while incarcerated and 

seeks to hold the defendants liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

The magistrate judge determined service was proper, and the defendants were served with the 

summons and complaint though the Court’s e-Service program. (Doc. 22.) Defendants returned 

waivers of service on April 8, 2022, April 13, 2022, and May 13, 2022. (Docs. 35, 39, 43.) The 

magistrate judge granted Defendants’ requests to extend the deadline to file a responsive pleading. 

(Docs. 38, 41, 48, 50.) 

On July 19, 2022, the magistrate judge granted a request for further extension of time and

ordered Defendants to file a responsive pleading no later than August 11, 2022. (Doc. 50.) 

Defendants were also informed that “no further extensions [would] be granted absent good cause.” 

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:21-cv-0392 JLT EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT 

(Doc. 53)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Doc. 59)

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 62 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 3
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

(Id. at 2.) The same date, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default. (Doc. 52.) The magistrate 

judge noted this request was filed before the deadline for Defendants to file a responsive pleading had 

expired. (Doc. 53 at 3.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the request for entry of default 

be denied on July 20, 2022. (Id.)

On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 

(Doc. 58.) Plaintiff contends the magistrate judge exceeded her authority in granting the extensions of 

time for Defendants to respond to his complaint. (Id. at 1-3.) In addition, Plaintiff asserts “the 

Findings and Recommendations are contrary to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure” because 

Defendants were granted a 90-day extension but did not file an answer. (Id. at 4.) On August 3, 2022, 

Plaintiff then filed a motion for default judgment. (Doc. 59.) 

To the extent Plaintiff now contends the magistrate judge erred in granting the further 

extension of time, he has not properly raised the matter as a request for reconsideration. Regardless, 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clearly authorize the Court to extend the deadline to file a 

responsive pleading for good cause. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). Notably, this rule “is to be liberally 

construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on their merits.” Ahanchian 

v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010). As the magistrate judge determined, 

counsel exhibited good cause due to a recent reassignment to the matter, a pre-planned vacation, and 

need for additional time to meet and confer with Plaintiff concerning early settlement conference. (Id.

at 1-2.) Thus, Plaintiff’s objection that the magistrate judge exceeded her authority by extending the 

responsive pleading deadline is overruled. With the ordered deadline of August 11, 2022, Plaintiff’s 

request for default was premature under Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

magistrate judge did not err in denying the request.

Further, default judgment may not be entered, because default has not been entered by the 

Court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55; see also Symantec Corp v. Glob. Impact Inc., 559 F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 

2009) (noting the two-step process under Rule 55 of entering default and then entering a default 

judgment); Ortiz v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., 2017 WL 3593728 at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Aug 21, 2017) 

(denying a motion for default judgment because no default had been entered); Thielwisemiller v. Eder, 

2014 WL 1796323 at *3 (D. Nev. May 6, 2014) (explaining default is a “precondition to the entry of a 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 62 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 3
3

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

default judgment”). Moreover, Defendants filed their Answer on August 11, 2022, in compliance with 

the deadline ordered by the Court. (Doc. 60.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is 

likewise denied. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire matter—including Plaintiff’s objections—the Court concludes 

the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Accordingly, 

the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 20, 2022 (Doc. 53) are ADOPTED in 

full.

2. Plaintiff’s request for entry of default (Doc. 52) is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 59) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2022 

Case 1:21-cv-00392-JLT-EPG Document 62 Filed 08/30/22 Page 3 of 3