Benjamin Justin Brownlee v. J. Burnes, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: September 23, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00376
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN JUSTIN BROWNLEE, Case No. 1:23-cv-00376-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER NOTING CLERK PROPERLY REJECTED PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED 13 v. REQUEST FOR CLERK’S DEFAULT 14 J. BURNES, ET AL., (Doc. No. 73)

15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Declaration for Entry of Default.” (Doc. No. 73, 18 “Declaration”). Plaintiff complains that counsel for Defendants did not provide him with a copy 19 of his deposition and requests “entry of default against Defendants.” (Id.). Liberally construed 20 Plaintiff requests that the Clerk enter a clerk’s default against Defendants pursuant to Rule 55(a) 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 22 By way of background, Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 23 pauperis on his First Amended Complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as screened. (Doc. 24 No. 24). On July 12, 2024, Defendants timely filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended 25 Complaint. (Doc. No. 39). If a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend an action after being 26 properly served with a summons and complaint, a default judgment may be entered pursuant to 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). Rule 55 requires a “two-step process” that consists of (1) 28 seeking the clerk’s entry of default and (2) filing a motion for entry of default judgment. Eitel v. 1 | McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986); see Symantec Corp. v. Global Impact, Inc., 559 2 | F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting “the two-step process of ‘Entering a Default’ and ‘Entering 3 | a Default Judgment’). Here, Defendants timely responded to Plaintiff’s First Amended 4 | Complaint. Thus, he is not entitled to a clerk’s entry of default under Rule 55(a). 5 To the extent that Plaintiff contends he was entitled to a copy of his deposition transcript, 6 | heis incorrect. In forma pauperis status does not authorize the courts to expend funds on copies, 7 | even for an indigent litigant. See Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 212 (9th Cir. 1989)(finding plain 8 | language of § 1915 did not waive payment of fees or expenses for witnesses); see also Boston vy. 9 | Garcia, Case No. 2:10-cv-1782-KJM-DAD PC, 2013 WL 1165062 *2 (March 20, 2013)(denying 10 | inmate plaintiff's motion for free copy of deposition transcript at the discovery stage of the 11 | proceedings); Joseph v. Parciasepe, Case No. 2:14-cv-414 GEB AC P, 2016 WL 2743448 *4 12 | (E.D. Ca. May 11, 2016)(denying motion to compel production of deposition transcript for free at 13 | the discovery stage of the proceedings). Further, Defendants did not file a motion for summary 14 | judgment. Consequently, Plaintiff's deposition is not at issue at this stage of the proceedings. 15 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 16 1. The Clerk properly rejected Plaintiff's construed request for a Clerk’s default (Doc. 17 No. 73). 18 2. The Court will issue a second scheduling order setting this case for a pretrial 19 conference and trial before the district court. 20 21 | Dated: _ September 23, 2025 Mihaw. □□ fares Back HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28