FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
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
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).
IT IS SO ORDERED.