Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00671/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00671-1/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 Defendants are advised that they should file their motion for extension of time to respond 1

separately from their notice of removal in the future. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKEY ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. YATES, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-671-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

DEFAULT

(ECF No. 8)

AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND

(ECF No. 1)

Plaintiff Rickey Adams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Request for

Entry of Default [ECF No. 8] asking the Court to enter default against Defendants based

on their failure to answer or otherwise respond to his complaint. Defendants have filed an

opposition to this Motion. 

In conjunction with their Notice of Removal, Defendants asked the Court to delay

their time for responding to the Complaint until after the Court had screened the Complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A). The filing of this motion and the Defendants’ opposition 1

to the instant motion indicates that Defendants intend to defend against this action. Thus,

default is inappropriate. Even if the Court were to enter default, it could easily be set aside.

See Knox v. Woodford, 2010 WL 19567839, *1 (E.D. Ca. May 14, 2010). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Entry of Default [ECF No. 8] is DENIED.

Case 1:10-cv-00671-AWI-MJS Document 12 Filed 07/16/10 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

-2-

Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to Respond [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED.

Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint not later than thirty days after the Court

enters its screening order, if any claims are found cognizable. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00671-AWI-MJS Document 12 Filed 07/16/10 Page 2 of 2