Opinion
3:11-CV-oo121-ECR (RAM)
08-17-2011
GILBERT PALIOTTA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants.
MINUTES OF THE COURT
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE ROBERTA. McQUAID, JR.,U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK: JENNIFER COTTER REPORTER: NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Plaintiff Gilbert Paliotta (Plaintiff) filed a motion requesting entry of default against unspecified defendants. (Doc. # 26.) Defendants opposed. (Doc. # 27.)
Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on March 10, 2011 naming as defendants: Adams, Baker, Brooks, Cox, Drain, Farnworth, Ladja, McDaniel, Sedlacek, Tolbert, Waggener, and the State of Nevada in relation to the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). (Doc. # 10.)
On May 4, 2011, the court entered its screening order construing Plaintiff's amended complaint as asserting a single claim alleging his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated. (Doc. # 18.) The court dismissed the State of Nevada, NDOC, Tolbert, and Farnworth. (Id. at 4-6.) The court ordered that the due process claim could proceed against Defendants Adams, Baker, Brooks, Cox, Drain, Ladja, McDaniel, Sedlacek, and Waggener. (Id. at 5-6.)
The amended complaint was served on Defendants Adams, Baker, Brooks, Cox, Drain, McDaniel, Sedlacek, and Waggener, who subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. (See Doc. # 20 and Doc. # 23.) Therefore, there is no basis to enter default against these defendants. In addition, there is no record before the court indicating that Ladja has been served with the summons and complaint in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. Default cannot be entered against a defendant who has not been served with the summons and complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4, 55. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion requesting entry of default (Doc. # 26) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By: ____________
Deputy Clerk