From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peyton v. Cates

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 4, 2021
1:21-cv-00740-DAD-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-00740-DAD-EPG (PC)

08-04-2021

RAYMOND E. PEYTON, Plaintiff, v. B. CATES, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

(ECF NO. 8)

Raymond Peyton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On August 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff alleges that he filed an amended complaint on June 16, 2021. Plaintiff moves for default judgment because neither this Court nor Defendant has responded to his First Amended Complaint.

In the alternative, Plaintiff appears to ask for production of documents. However, discovery has not yet opened in this case and Plaintiff has not provided any explanation as to why he needs early discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiff's requests for production of documents are DENIED.

Plaintiff's motion will be denied. To begin, the Court notes that it did not receive an amended complaint from Plaintiff, and Plaintiff did not attach a proof of service showing that he served the amended complaint.

Plaintiff should refile the amended complaint if he wants it to be considered by the Court. If he does, the Court will vacate the findings and recommendations issued on July 30, 2021 (ECF No. 7), and screen Plaintiff's amended complaint.

Additionally, Plaintiff has not asked the Clerk of Court to issue a default for any defendant, and there is no evidence that any defendant has defaulted. The only defendant who has appeared through an attorney (defendant Cates) has “thirty (30) days from the date of the screening order to file a responsive pleading to any Complaint that passes the Court's screening.” (ECF No. 3, p. 1). As no claims have been allowed to proceed past screening, defendant Cates has not defaulted. And, there is no evidence that any other defendant has been served.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs motion for default judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Peyton v. Cates

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 4, 2021
1:21-cv-00740-DAD-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021)
Case details for

Peyton v. Cates

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND E. PEYTON, Plaintiff, v. B. CATES, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 4, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-00740-DAD-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021)