From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cranford v. Nickels

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 2, 2011
Case No. 1:07-cv-01812 JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 1:07-cv-01812 JLT (PC)

08-02-2011

ARCHIE CRANFORD, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTINA NICKELS, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. 38)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's July 29, 2011 motion for entry of default judgment. (Doc. 38.) Therein, Plaintiff argues that default judgment should be entered against Defendant for her failure to respond to this Court's orders. (Id. at 2.)

The relevant background to this matter is as follows. On June 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery responses. (Doc. 35.) After Defendant failed to file an opposition to the motion in accordance with Local Rule 230(l), the Court issued an order to show cause on July 13, 2011. (Doc. 36.) Defendant filed a timely response to the order to show cause on July 27, 2011. (Doc. 37.) Therein, Defendant concedes that she failed to file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel in accordance with Local Rule 230(l). (Id. at 2.) Defendant explains, however, that it was her belief that Plaintiff had filed the motion to compel in error. (Id.) Defendant asserts that she never received discovery requests in this case. (Id.) Defendant suggests that Plaintiff intended to file the motion to compel in a related case, Cranford v. Salber, No. 08-cv-0063 SKO-PC, wherein Plaintiff did propound discovery on the defendants. (Id.)

This case has since been reassigned to the undersigned. The new case number is Cranford v. Salber, No. 08-cv-0063 JLT-PC.

As the above discussion makes clear, Plaintiff's pending motion for default judgment plainly lacks merit, as Defendant did file a timely response to the Court's order to show cause. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's July 29, 2011 motion for default judgment (Doc. 38) is DENIED.

To the extent Plaintiff wishes to respond to Defendant's assertion that the pending motion to compel was filed in error and was intended to be filed in Cranford v. Salber, Plaintiff shall file such a response within seven days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Cranford v. Nickels

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 2, 2011
Case No. 1:07-cv-01812 JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011)
Case details for

Cranford v. Nickels

Case Details

Full title:ARCHIE CRANFORD, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTINA NICKELS, Defendant.

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

Date published: Aug 2, 2011

Citations

Case No. 1:07-cv-01812 JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2011)