Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Alan Thomas Rigby v. County of Orange

January 5, 2012

ALAN THOMAS RIGBY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF ORANGE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: David T. Bristow United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

On November 3, 2011, plaintiff filed a Motion Requesting the Court Grant Default Judgment Against Non-Responsive Defendants ("Motion"). On November 15, 2011, defendants County of Orange, Sheriff Sandra Hutchens, Deputy Fischer, Dr. Kao and Dr. Ernest R. Williams (collectively referred to herein as "defendants") filed an Opposition ("Opp.") to the Motion as well as a Request for Sanctions against plaintiff for an amount not less than $800.00. On December 2, 2011, plaintiff filed his Reply.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On May 28, 2010, plaintiff lodged for filing his Complaint in this action. On June 17, 2010, plaintiff's request to proceed without the prepayment of the filing fee was granted and the Complaint was filed. Plaintiff named the following defendants in his Complaint: The County of Orange, California ("County"); Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens ("Hutchens"); three unnamed Orange County Sheriff Deputies, named as John Does Nos. 1, 2, 4; and an unnamed "treating" physician, named as John Doe No. 3.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court screened the Complaint prior to ordering service, for purposes of determining whether the action was frivolous or malicious; or failed to state a claim on which relief might be granted; or sought monetary relief against a defendant who was immune from such relief. After careful review and consideration of the allegations of the Complaint under the relevant standards, the Court found that its allegations were insufficient to state a claim on which relief might be granted for violation of plaintiff's federal civil rights.

On September 29, 2010, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") herein. Named as defendants in the FAC were County; Hutchens; Orange County Sheriff Deputies La Paz ("La Paz") and Fischer ("Fischer"); physician and surgeon, Dr. Jaya, M.D. ("Dr. Jaya"); Dr. Ernest R. Williams ("Dr. Williams"); Dr. Michael Kao, M.D. ("Dr. Kao"); an unnamed "physician's assistant" and an unnamed "nurse practitioner," named as John Does Nos. 1 & 2; and two unnamed "deputy sheriffs," named as John Does Nos. 3 & 4. (See FAC ¶¶ 14-43.)*fn1

Again, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court screened the FAC prior to ordering service and on October 15, 2010, issued an Order Directing Service of the FAC on defendants La Paz and Fischer solely in their individual capacities. Plaintiff was advised that if he desired to pursue an action against any of the other named defendants, within 30 days of the service order, plaintiff was to file a Second Amended Complaint.

On January 14, 2011, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") herein. Named as defendants in the SAC were County; Hutchens; La Paz; Fischer; Dr. Williams; Dr. Jaya; Dr. Kao; two unnamed "nurse practitioners" named as John Does 1 & 2; five unnamed "deputy sheriff's and agents of sheriff and Orange County" named as John Does 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7; and four unnamed corporations (Doe Medical Business Corporation, doing business at Orange County Mail Jail; Doe Pharmacy Business Corporation; Doe Canteen Business Corporation and Doe Vocational Training Business Corporation). (See SAC ¶¶ 7-36.)*fn2

Again, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court screened the SAC prior to ordering service and on February 7, 2011, issued an Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint With Leave to Amend. Plaintiff was advised that if he still desired to pursue this action, he was ordered to file a Third Amended Complaint within 30 days remedying the deficiencies discussed in the dismissal order.

After one extension of time, on April 27, 2011, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"). Named as defendants in the TAC were Hutchens; County; La Paz; Fischer; four unnamed Orange County Sheriff Deputies named as John Does 1, 2, 3, & 4; Dr. Williams; Dr. Jaya; Dr. Kao; and one unnamed corporation ("Doe Canteen Business Corporation"). (See TAC ¶¶ 7-16.)*fn3

Again, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court screened the TAC prior to ordering service and on May 5, 2011, issued an Order Dismissing Third Amended Complaint With Leave to Amend. Plaintiff was advised that if he still desired to pursue this action, he was ordered to file a Fourth Amended Complaint within 30 days remedying the deficiencies discussed in the dismissal order.

After one extension of time, on July 5, 2011, plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint ("4thAC"). Named as defendants in the 4thAC are Hutchens; County; La Paz; Fischer; four unnamed Orange County Sheriff Deputies named as John Does 1, 2, 3, & 4; Dr. Williams; Dr. Jaya; Dr. Kao; and one unnamed corporation ("Doe Canteen Business Corporation"). (See 4thAC ¶¶ 7-16.)*fn4

Again, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court screened the 4thAC prior to ordering service and on July 7, 2011, ordered the 4thAC served on the seven defendants named therein. (See 4thAC ¶¶ 7-16.) On July 25, 2011, plaintiff filed his Notice of Submission of Documents to the United States Marshal. The United States Marshal service began service of process by preparing waivers of service. The same were mailed out to all defendants.

On September 16, 2011, service on behalf of defendants Fischer and Hutchens was accepted. On September 19, 2011, service on behalf of defendant Dr. Kao was accepted. On October 3, 2011, defendants County, Hutchens, Fischer, Dr. Kao and Dr. Williams appeared and filed a Motion to Dismiss the 4thAC ("Motion to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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