YOUNG v. SISODIA, 1:15-cv-00640-LJO-EPG (PC). (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20170525887
Visitors: 24
Filed: May 24, 2017
Latest Update: May 24, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 33 & 34) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Ronald Young ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The case is now proceeding on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint against defendant C. Sisodia. (ECF Nos. 19, 20, & 23). On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default (ECF No. 33) and a motion for de
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NOS. 33 & 34) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . Ronald Young ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. The case is now proceeding on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint against defendant C. Sisodia. (ECF Nos. 19, 20, & 23). On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default (ECF No. 33) and a motion for def..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(ECF NOS. 33 & 34)
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
Ronald Young ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case is now proceeding on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint against defendant C. Sisodia. (ECF Nos. 19, 20, & 23).
On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default (ECF No. 33) and a motion for default judgment (ECF No. 34). Both motions will be denied.
The United States Marshal Service filed the executed waiver of service on May 4, 2017. (ECF No. 31). According to the wavier, defendant Sisodia had 60 days from after March 29, 2017, in which to serve his answer. (Id.). Defendant Sisodia filed and served his answer on May 23, 2017, which is within this time period. (ECF No. 32). Therefore, defendant Sisodia did not default and Plaintiff is not entitled to an entry of default or a default judgment.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and motion for default judgment are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
