From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. Nunley

United States District Court, E.D. California, Fresno Division
Sep 30, 2009
No. CIV 06-0191-NVW (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2009)

Opinion

No. CIV 06-0191-NVW.

September 30, 2009


ORDER


Before the Court are Defendant J. Nunley's Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 36) and Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (doc. # 37). Neither requires a response, and both will be denied summarily.

By order of September 16, 2009, Defendant Nunley's time to respond to the Second Amended Complaint was extended to September 30, 2009, and Defendant Nunley filed the Motion to Dismiss on September 28, 2009. No acceptance of service or proof of service has been filed with the Clerk of the Court concerning Defendant W. J. Sullivan. Therefore, Defendants are not in default, and Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (doc. # 37) must be denied.

The Court previously screened the Second Amended Complaint and found that it minimally stated a claim. (Doc. # 25.) Defendant J. Nunley's Motion to Dismiss is an unacknowledged dissent against the screening order and will be denied for the reasons already stated in the screening order. Defendant Nunley's time to respond to the Second Amended Complaint will not be extended again.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (doc. # 37) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant J. Nunley's Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 36) is denied.


Summaries of

Howard v. Nunley

United States District Court, E.D. California, Fresno Division
Sep 30, 2009
No. CIV 06-0191-NVW (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2009)
Case details for

Howard v. Nunley

Case Details

Full title:Clarence Howard, Plaintiff, v. C/O J. Nunley, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California, Fresno Division

Date published: Sep 30, 2009

Citations

No. CIV 06-0191-NVW (E.D. Cal. Sep. 30, 2009)