Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00487/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00487-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. Gonzales
Defendant
Timothy Howard
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

TIMOTHY HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C. GONZALES, 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv00487 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTIONS FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT

(Documents 33 and 34)

Plaintiff Timothy Howard (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, filed this civil rights action filed on March 30, 2012. This action is proceeding against 

Defendant Gonzales for violation of the First and Eighth Amendments.

On March 19, 2013, the Court ordered the United States Marshal to serve Defendant.

On February 7, 2014, the United States Marshal filed a proof of service indicating that 

Defendant was served personally.

On May 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court order Defendant 

Gonzales to file an answer. On May 9, 2014, the Court granted the motion in part. Instead of 

ordering Defendant to answer the complaint, the Court issued an order to show cause why 

default should not be entered.

Case 1:12-cv-00487-LJO-DLB Document 42 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 2
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

On May 22, 2014, Defendant filed an answer along with a declaration. In her 

declaration, Defendant stated that she was not aware of the action until May 14, 2014, and had 

not been served either personally or by mail. Therefore, on May 23, 2014, the Court discharged 

the order to show cause.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 23, 2014, 

order discharging the order to show cause. The motion has been denied by separate order.

Also on June 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed requests for entry of default judgment. The requests 

assume that the Clerk of the Court has already entered default. However, as explained above, the 

Court has denied Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration and this action will proceed on the 

merits. Therefore, default has not been entered and Plaintiff’s request for entry of default 

judgment is procedurally improper. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00487-LJO-DLB Document 42 Filed 07/03/14 Page 2 of 2