Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00380/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00380-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS MACKENZIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEBRA M. CORNEZ,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-0380 KJM KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a civil detainee, proceeding pro se, in this civil rights action brought pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This order addresses plaintiff’s request for leave to amend the complaint and 

plaintiff’s request for “sanctions and ruling.” (ECF Nos. 12 & 14.)

Plaintiff’s Request for Leave to Amend

Plaintiff filed his original complaint in this action on February 17, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) 

On August 21, 2015, the court found that service was appropriate for defendant Cornez. (ECF 

No. 8.) Plaintiff submitted the required service documents, and on September 8, 2015, the court 

directed the United States Marshal to serve process on defendant Cornez. (ECF No. 10.) On 

September 11, 2015, plaintiff filed a request for leave to file an amended complaint, along with a 

proposed amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 12 & 12-1.)

////

Case 2:15-cv-00380-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 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

2

Under Rule 15(a), a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time 

before a responsive pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Allwaste, Inc. v. Hecht, 65 F.3d 

1523, 1530 (9th Cir. 1995). When plaintiff filed his first and only request for leave to amend the 

complaint, defendant Cornez had not yet been served with the complaint.1 Accordingly, 

plaintiff’s timely request for leave to amend will be granted nunc pro tunc, and this action shall 

proceed on the First Amended Complaint (FAC), ECF No. 12-1. Because defendant Cornez has 

already filed a motion to dismiss the FAC, see ECF No. 19, there is no need for plaintiff to serve 

the FAC on defendant.2

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions and Default Judgment

Plaintiff also filed a “request for sanctions and ruling.” (ECF No. 14.) In his motion, filed 

January 14, 2016, plaintiff requests that the court impose sanctions on defendant Cornez for 

failure to respond to the complaint within thirty days of the “court’s order.”

3

 (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff 

asserts that because defendant did not respond to the complaint, the court should deem the matter 

submitted, address the merits of his complaint, and grant the requested injunctive relief. (See id.) 

In light of plaintiff’s request, the court construes plaintiff’s motion as a request for an entry of 

default and default judgment against defendant Cornez.

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 failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

55(a). Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, “A defendant must serve an 

answer within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint; or if it has timely 

waived service under Rule 4(d), within 60 days after the request for a waiver was sent.” Fed. R.

 

1

The court’s review of the docket indicates that defendant Cornez was personally served with the 

summons and complaint on April 28, 2016. (See ECF No. 15.)

2

In her motion to dismiss, defendant Cornez explains that although she was served with the 

original complaint, “[f]or the sake of judicial economy, the [motion to dismiss] responds to the 

FAC even though it was not served on the Defendant.” ECF No. 19-1 at 7.

3

Presumably plaintiff is referring to the court’s September 8, 2015 order directing the United 

States Marshal to serve process within 14 days on defendant Cornez, ECF No. 10.

Case 2:15-cv-00380-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 09/16/16 Page 2 of 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

3

Civ. P. 12(a) (1)(A). Under Rule 4(d), a defendant may waive service of a summons by signing 

and returning a waiver of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). If a defendant fails to plead or otherwise 

defend an action after being properly served with a summons and complaint, a default judgment 

may be entered pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In the instant case, the record reflects that defendant Cornez opted not to waive service 

under Rule 4(d). Thus, defendant was personally served by the United States Marshal on April 

28, 2016. (See ECF No. 15.) On May 19, 2016, defendant filed a timely motion to dismiss the 

First Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b). (ECF No. 19.) Because defendant’s motion to 

dismiss was timely filed before an answer was due, see Rule 12(a)(1), the court finds no evidence 

that defendant Cornez failed to plead or otherwise defend this action. Therefore, plaintiff is not 

entitled to an entry of default or default judgment against defendant Cornez. For the same 

reasons, sanctions based on defendant’s alleged failure to respond to the complaint are 

unwarranted. Plaintiff’s motion for “sanctions and ruling” will therefore be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend (ECF No. 12) is granted nunc pro tunc. This 

action shall proceed on the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12-1), filed 

September 11, 2015.

2. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an opposition

or statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss the FAC (ECF No. 

19). Failure to comply with the court’s order will result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

3. Plaintiff’s request for “sanctions and ruling” (ECF No. 14), construed as a request for 

sanctions and default judgment, is denied.

Dated: September 16, 2016

/mack0380.amd.default

Case 2:15-cv-00380-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 09/16/16 Page 3 of 3