Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gann v. Schwarzenegger

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 8, 2010

JOHN DAVID GANN A/K/A JENNIFER GANN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
A. SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF No. 17)

Plaintiff John David Gann a/k/a Jennifer Gann ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment asking the Court to enter default based on the Defendants' failure to defend against this action.

As Plaintiff was informed in the New Case Documents issued by the Court on September 15, 2009 (ECF No. 3), the Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Because of its large caseload of prisoner actions, the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff's Complaint.

The Court will screen Plaintiff's Complaint in due course. The Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve Plaintiff's Complaint only after the Court has screened the Complaint and determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief against the named Defendants. Defendants are required to answer or otherwise defend against Plaintiff's Complaint only after they have been properly served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. The default provisions of Rule 55(a) are not implicated until after service has occurred.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 17) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20101108

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.