Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01255/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01255-14/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

EMMANUAL BULL, 

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-01255-LJO-GSA-PC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUESTS FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

AGAINST DEFENDANTS

(Docs. 53, 54, 55.)

I. BACKGROUND

Emmanual Bull (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on October

3, 2005. (Doc. 1.) This case now proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, filed on

February 1, 2008, against defendants Correctional Officer ("C/O") J. M. Brown and C/O Y. Rivera

(collectively "Defendants") for an incident of excessive force on September 18, 2002, in violation

of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 18.) On January 23, January 24, and January 26, 2012, Plaintiff

filed requests for entry of default against Defendants. (Docs. 53, 54, 55.)

II. ENTRY OF DEFAULT -- RULE 55

Plaintiff argues that default should be entered against Defendants under Rule 55(a), because

Defendants were served with a copy of the summons and complaint and had not pled or issued an

answer, although more than thirty days had passed since the date of service. 

1

Case 1:05-cv-01255-LJO-GSA Document 84 Filed 11/20/12 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

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. 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). 

III. DISCUSSION

In this action, the United States Marshal ("Marshal")sent Waiver of Service forms on behalf

of Plaintiff to Defendants on October 14, 2011. (See Doc. 49.) Counsel for Defendant signed the

forms on December 12, 2011 and returned them to the Marshal. Id. The Marshal received the

completed forms on December 15, 2011 and filed them at the Court on January 5, 2012. Id. Based

on this evidence, the Court concludes that Defendants timely waived service under Rule 4(d),

causing their answers to be due sixty days later, on December 13, 2011. 

On December 12, 2011, before the sixty-daydeadline had expired, Defendants filed a motion

for an extension of time to file a response to the amended complaint, and on December 15, 2011, the

Court granted Defendants a thirty-day extension of time. (Docs. 47, 48.) Defendants filed a timely

answer on January 17, 2012. (Doc. 50.) Because Defendants made a timely appearance in this 1

action on December 12, 2011, via a motion for extension of time, and filed a timely answer on

January 17, 2012, the Court finds no evidence that Defendants failed to plead or otherwise defend

this action. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to entry of default against Defendants.

///

In computing a time period specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, when the period is stated in

1

days and the last day of the period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of

the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(c). In this instance, 30 days

from December 15, 2011 was January 14, 2012, which was a Saturday. The following Monday, January 16, 2012,

was Martin Luther King Day, which is a federal holiday. Therefore, the 30 day extension of time for Defendants to

file a response continued to run until Tuesday, January 17, 2012. Thus, Defendants' answer, filed on January 17,

2012, was timely.

2

Case 1:05-cv-01255-LJO-GSA Document 84 Filed 11/20/12 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

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s requests for entry of

default against Defendants, filed on January 23, January 24, and January 26, 2012, are DENIED.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 19, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:05-cv-01255-LJO-GSA Document 84 Filed 11/20/12 Page 3 of 3