Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01712/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01712-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Devon Bradford
Plaintiff
John Corrico
Defendant
Randy Davis
Defendant
Paul MacDonald
Defendant
Doug Ridenour
Defendant
Jacob Weiser
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVON BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANT DOUG RIDENOUR HAS 

NOT FILED AN ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) 

DAYS

Plaintiff Devon Bradford (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Randy Davis, John Corrico, Doug 

Ridenour, Jacob Weiser and Paul MacDonald (“Defendants”).

The Court reviewed the record in this case and noted that there is no answer on record for 

Defendant Doug Ridenour. The answer filed on March 26, 2013 was filed on behalf of 

Defendants Randy Davis, John Corrico, Jacob Keiser and Paul MacDonald. (ECF No. 16.) 

However, a waiver of service was returned executed by James F. Wilson, Esq. on behalf of Doug 

Ridenour on February 23, 2013. (ECF No. 15.) Mr. Wilson is the attorney of record for 

Defendants Davis, Corrico, Keiser and MacDonald. It is unclear why Mr. Wilson filed an 

answer on behalf of Defendants Davis, Corrico, Keiser and MacDonald, but not on behalf of 

Defendant Ridenour.

/ / /

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 26 Filed 07/26/13 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

Since there is no answer on file for Defendant Ridenour, he is susceptible to entry of 

default and default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55. However, the 

Court notes that Defendant Ridenour’s failure to answer may be a typographical error and his 

name was inadvertently omitted from the answer on file. To avoid needless delay and costs 

associated with entering and vacating default, the Court will order Defendants to show cause 

why Defendant Ridenour has not filed an answer to the complaint. To the extent that Defendant 

Ridenour’s name was inadvertently omitted from the answer on file, Defendants are ordered to 

file an amended answer within fourteen (14) days. If Defendant Ridenour was deliberately left 

off the answer on file, Defendants shall so inform the Court within fourteen (14) days.

In accordance with the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall 

SHOW CAUSE why Defendant Ridenour has not filed an answer to the complaint within 

fourteen (14) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2013 _ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 26 Filed 07/26/13 Page 2 of 2