Filed: Nov. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT ROMERO [ECF No. 19] STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Shajia Ayobi is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On August 23, 2019, the Court found that service of the complaint was appropriate as to Defendant Dr. Romero. On September 3, 2019, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) filed a notice of intent to waive s
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT ROMERO [ECF No. 19] STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Shajia Ayobi is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On August 23, 2019, the Court found that service of the complaint was appropriate as to Defendant Dr. Romero. On September 3, 2019, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) filed a notice of intent to waive se..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT ROMERO
[ECF No. 19]
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Shajia Ayobi is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On August 23, 2019, the Court found that service of the complaint was appropriate as to Defendant Dr. Romero.
On September 3, 2019, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) filed a notice of intent to waive service. (ECF No. 8.) A waive by the Office of the Attorney General was due thirty days thereafter. The Court did not receive a timely a waiver by the Office of the Attorney General. Therefore, on October 7, 2019, the Court issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. (ECF No. 9.)
On October 23, 2019, Deputy Attorney General Matthew Roman filed a declaration in response, along with a waiver of service by Defendant Romero demonstrating good cause to not enter default. (ECF Nos. 10, 11, 16.)
On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a response to the Court's November 6, 2019, order as to why entry of default should not be entered. (ECF No. 19.)
Because Defendant has answered the complaint and demonstrated good cause for his failure to timely do so, Plaintiff's request for entry of default is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
