Biton v. Jackson

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ETTI BITON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-23-968-SLP ) JEFFREY JACKSON, ) ) Defendant. )

O R D E R Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment [Doc. No. 13] filed by counsel for Plaintiff, Ge’Andra Johnson, prior to her withdrawal from representation.1 Additionally, pursuant to the Court’s Order to file a supplemental affidavit providing details on her computation of damages, [Doc. No. 14], Plaintiff filed, pro se, a supplemental “Affidavit in Support of Damages Calculation Under Form I-864” [Doc. No. 16]. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1), the Court may enter default judgment on a claim “for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation” on “the plaintiff’s request, with an affidavit showing the amount due[.]” In its current form, Plaintiff’s supplemental “Affidavit” [Doc. No. 16] is not sworn, signed, or notarized, nor does it qualify as an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury under 28 U.S.C. § 1746.2

1 Plaintiff filed a letter expressing her intent to proceed pro se and requesting that counsel withdraw from representation. See [Doc. Nos. 18, 20]. Counsel has subsequently withdrawn, see [Doc. Nos. 19, 20], and Plaintiff proceeds pro se.

2 “[P]arties [may] submit unsworn declarations in lieu of affidavits, provided that the declarations” comply with the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Vazirabadi v. Denver Health & Hosp. Auth., 782 F. App’x 681, 687 (10th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, Plaintiff must resubmit her Affidavit [Doc. No. 16] either sworn, signed, and notarized, or as a declaration “under penalty of perjury” in compliance with § 1746. Plaintiff need not resubmit the exhibits to her Affidavit. [Doc. Nos. 16-1—16-9]. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within 21 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall resubmit a copy of her Affidavit that is either: (1) sworn, signed, and notarized; or (2) signed “under penalty of perjury” in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this Order may result in her Motion being denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2"¢ day of January, 2025. ) eZ bbb SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE