VELEZ v. LEWIS

Case No. 1:17-cv-00026-DAD-SKO (PC).

ROBERT VELEZ, Jr., Plaintiff, v. LEWIS, et. al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert Velez, Jr., Plaintiff, Pro Se.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Doc. 10)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, Robert Velez, Jr., a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a default judgment against the defendants, since they have not filed either a motion to dismiss or an answer to the Complaint. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff requests that default be entered and the defendants be required to file a response to the Complaint. (Id.)

The First Informational Order informed Plaintiff that 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) requires the Court to screen Plaintiff's complaint. (Doc. 4, p. 3.) After the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim, the United States Marshal will be ordered to initiate service on the defendants. (Id.) The date a responsive pleading is due is calculated from the date of service and depends on the method of service. As an initial matter and as stated in the recently issued screening order, Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted. Since Plaintiff has not yet stated a cognizable claim, his complaint has not been served on the defendants. If Plaintiff is able to state a cognizable claim, service will be initiated by the United States Marshal, and responses will become due. Until that time, no responsive pleadings are due from the defendants.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, filed on March 6, 2017, (Doc. 10), be DENIED as premature.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 30 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases