Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00669/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00669-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMIRO ROMERO,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00669-LJO-YNP PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

(Doc. 8)

Plaintiff Ramiro Romero (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a motion for entry

of default judgment against Defendants on August 24, 2009. (Doc. #8.)

Plaintiff argues that the Court should enter default judgment because Defendants were served

on May 16, 2008 by the U.S. Marshal and Defendants have not filed an answer to Plaintiff’s

complaint. Nothing presented in Plaintiff’s motion or in Plaintiff’s declaration in support of his

motion supports his contention that Defendants have been properly served. The Court screened

Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state anycognizable claims. (Doc.

#13.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend and there is no complaint

currently before the Court. 

Plaintiff seeks entryof default judgment against Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 55(b). Rule 55(b) permits the Court to enter a default judgment against a defendant who

has defaulted for not appearing. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), “[w]hen a party

against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and

1

Case 1:08-cv-00669-LJO-MJS Document 14 Filed 02/12/10 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

that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” However,

“[a] federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been

served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986)

(citing Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982)). Neither actual notice nor simply

naming a person in the caption of a complaint will subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction if

service is not made in substantial compliance with Rule 4. Jackson, 682 F.2d at 1347. If the Court

lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants, Defendants cannot be bound by any judgment rendered

in this case and an entry of default judgment against Defendants would be void. Mason v. Genisco

TechnologyCorp., 960 F.2d 849, 851 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing Yniguez v. Arizona, 939 F.2d 727, 735

(9th Cir. 1991)). Since Defendants have not yet been properly served and there is no complaint

currently before the Court, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Accordingly, the

Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment.

Accordingly, it is HEREBYORDERED that Plaintiff’smotion for entryof default judgment,

filed August 24, 2009, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 12, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-00669-LJO-MJS Document 14 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 2