UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 29, 2006
HAROLD WALKER, PLAINTIFF,
G.J. GIURBINO, WARDEN, ET AL., [DOC. NO. 12] DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Nita L. Stormes U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
On March 17, 2006, Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison located in Imperial, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). See May 31, 2006 Order at 6, Doc. No. 4. Plaintiff was granted forty five days to file a First Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. Id. On July 11, 2006, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC") [Doc. No. 6].
On November 8, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment [Doc. No. 12], requesting that the Court enter a judgment of default in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. However, on December 13, 2006, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's FAC for once again failing to state a section 1983 claim upon which relief may be granted. See December 13, 2006 Order at 5, Doc. No. 13. Plaintiff was granted forty five days to file a Second Amended Complaint. Id.
Because Plaintiff's FAC has been dismissed in its entirety, and no responsive pleading is required of Defendants at this time, Plaintiff cannot meet the threshold procedural requirements for entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.