Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00112/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00112-6/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

NORRIS DAJON MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00112-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR ENTRY 

OF DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Docs. 31 and 36)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS WHY

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED

(Doc. 27)

Plaintiff Norris Dajon Miller, a former prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 23, 2010. On April 24, 2012,

the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of Plaintiff’s

amended complaint on Defendants Huyck, Johnson, Lyon, Teater, and Moore. Defendants Huyck,

Johnson, Lyon, and Teater answered the amended complaint and a scheduling order was issued. 

Defendant Moore remains unserved, however.

On June 6, 2012, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s third motion for entry of

default against Defendants, including Moore. In the order, the Court stated:

As with the two previous motions, Plaintiff’s third motion lacks merit. The United

States Marshal was directed to initiate service of process on April 24, 2012. There

is no evidence in the record that Defendants waived service or were personally served

and thereafter failed to file a timely response. Until and unless Plaintiff is in receipt

of such evidence, there is no basis for seeking entry of default. 

Plaintiff was previously warned that further filing of baseless requests for the entry

of default may lead to the imposition of sanctions against him. Plaintiff is now

warned that if he files another meritless motion, sanctions will be imposed against

him.

1

Case 1:10-cv-00112-SKO Document 38 Filed 10/05/12 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

(Order, Doc. 27, 1:18-15.) 

Despite the Court’s clear warning to Plaintiff, he filed another baseless motion seeking entry

of default against Defendant Moore on July 20, 2012, and a baseless motion seeking default

judgment against Defendant Moore on September 12, 2012. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. There remains no

evidence in the record that Defendant Moore has been served. Plaintiff’s motions are devoid of 1

merit and shall be denied. In addition, Plaintiff shall be required to show causewhy sanctions should

not be imposed against him for violating the Court’s order of June 6, 2012.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default, filed on July 20, 2012, and Plaintiff’s motion

for default judgment, filed on September 12, 2012, are DENIED; and

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show

cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him for acting in contravention

of the Court’s order of June 6, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Upon inquiry, the Marshal has informed the Court that it will be returning the service documents

1

unexecuted, as it has been unable to locate Defendant Moore. The Court will determine the appropriate course of

action once it has receives, files, and reviews the USM-285 form.

2

Case 1:10-cv-00112-SKO Document 38 Filed 10/05/12 Page 2 of 2