From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cahill v. Harrington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 1, 2011
No. CIV S-10-3181 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-10-3181 DAD P

09-01-2011

JOHN MICHAEL CAHILL, Plaintiff, v. R.L. HARRINGTON et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On May 24, 2011, the United States Marshal filed a waiver of service of summons signed by defendant Harrington. According to the waiver, the defendant understands that a judgment may be entered against him if he does not file and serve on plaintiff an answer or motion under Rule 12 within 60 days of April 28, 2011. To date, defendant Harrington has not filed an answer or a motion under Rule 12 in this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days of the date of this order, defendant Harrington shall show cause as to why the court should not enter default judgment against him pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a); and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on defendant Harrington at Mule Creek State Prison and a courtesy copy of this order on Monica Anderson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General at the California Attorney General's Office.

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DAD:9

cahi3181.46


Summaries of

Cahill v. Harrington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 1, 2011
No. CIV S-10-3181 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Cahill v. Harrington

Case Details

Full title:JOHN MICHAEL CAHILL, Plaintiff, v. R.L. HARRINGTON et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 1, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-10-3181 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2011)