Opinion
3:22-cv-135
05-15-2023
WARREN EASLEY, Plaintiff v. CRNP BLOOM, et al., Defendants
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RICHARD A. LANZILLO CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that default judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff Warren Easley and against Defendants Sean Bresnahan and Michelle Ivicic pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. Report
A. Background
Plaintiff, an inmate confined at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, commenced this action by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 23, 2022. ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on September 16, 2022. ECF Nos. 4-5. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on October 17, 2022. ECF No. 7. As Defendants, Plaintiff named two Department of Corrections (DOC) employees, Sean Bresnahan and Michelle Ivicic, and two non-DOC employees, CRNP Bloom and Ingrid Renberg.
On November 1, 2022, the Court directed the United States Marshal to mail a copy of the complaint, notice of lawsuit, request for waiver of service of summons, and waiver to each Defendant. ECF No. 11. It appears that the Marshal mailed the waivers on December 7, 2022. See ECF No. 33. Counsel for the non-DOC Defendants filed a waiver of service on January 20, 2023, and a timely motion to dismiss on February 9, 2023. See ECF Nos. 32, 33, 39.
On February 22, 2023, counsel for the DOC Defendants was notified that the Court intended to order personal service on the two DOC Defendants because no waiver of service had been filed. On February 24, 2023, counsel indicated that he would file a notice of appearance on February 27, 2023. When counsel failed to do so, he was notified that personal service would be ordered if a notice of appearance was not filed by 4:00 p.m. on March 1, 2023. Counsel then filed a notice of appearance and nunc pro tunc motion for extension of time to file an answer. ECF Nos. 42-43. Counsel explained that, “[w]hen this assignment was received by undersigned counsel, undersigned counsel through inadvertence and oversight neglected to calendar due dates for this case, such that the Correction Defendants' responsive pleading is now overdue.” ECF No. 43. ¶ 6. Citing “the press of other business and current staff shortages,” counsel requested an extension of time of fourteen days to file a responsive pleading. Id. ¶¶ 8-9.
The Court granted counsel's nunc pro tunc extension request on March 6, 2023. See ECF No. 49. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) and Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Associates, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993), the Court observed that a belated request for an extension of time may be granted where “the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” Id. Although the Court noted that Defendants' justification for the delay - “a staff shortage in the attorney general's office and confusion stemming from the fact that the same plaintiff has several pending cases against Department of Corrections employees” - was “not particularly compelling,” the Court found “nothing in the record to suggest that the delay stemmed from bad faith or dilatory tactics.” Id. Accordingly, the Court entered the following order:
[T]he Court will grant Defendants' motion and order Defendants to file an answer or responsive pleading on or before March 14, 2023. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF THIS DEADLINE WILL BE GRANTED. Should Defendants fail to answer or otherwise respond by that date, the Court will sua sponte enter default judgment in favor of Plaintiff.Id. Despite the Court's harshest admonition that no further delays would be tolerated, Defendants Bresnahan and Ivicic have again failed to answer or otherwise respond.
B. Analysis
Default judgments are governed by Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 55(a), a default judgment may be entered when the party against whom the default judgment is sought was served and has “failed to plead or otherwise respond.” Id. The decision whether to enter default judgment is “left primarily to the discretion of the district court.” United States v. $55,518.05 in U.S. Currency, 728 F.2d 192, 194-95 (3d Cir. 1984). In determining whether to exercise that discretion, the following factors warrant consideration: (1) whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced; (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; and (3) whether the default was the result of the defendant's culpable conduct. Id. (citing sources omitted).
In the instant case, default judgment is plainly appropriate. The U.S. Marshal sent a copy of the complaint and service papers over six months ago. Despite having received informal notice of the lawsuit on several occasions, defense counsel failed to enter an appearance until February 28, 2023. More critically, after receiving permission to file a belated answer because of an admitted failure to monitor case management deadlines, counsel disregarded both the Court's order and his own requested deadline by failing to take any further action. At this point, the Court is unaware of any other means to secure the DOC Defendants' participation in this lawsuit. Consequently, as presaged in the Court's March 6 Order, default judgment is warranted.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that default judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff Warren Easley and against Defendants Michele Ivicic and Sean Bresnahan. Should this recommendation be adopted, a hearing will be scheduled to determine the amount of damages in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2)(B).
IV. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties must seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the Objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Extensions of time will not be granted. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).
RICHARD A. LANZILLO
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: May 15, 2023 4