Dudley v. Freedman
This text of Dudley v. Freedman (Dudley v. Freedman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION
KARANYA MARQUIS DUDLEY PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:24-cv-04088
AMY FREEDMAN, Prosecuting Attorney; MATT STEPHENS, Public Defender; JUDGE C. JONES, Miller County District Court; JUDGE B. HALTOM, Miller County District Court; JUDGE W. AUTREY, Miller County District Court; STATE OF ARKANSAS; and MILLER COUNTY DISTRICT COURT DEFENDANTS
ORDER Karanya Marquis Dudley (“Plaintiff”) filed this case pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 26, 2024. ECF No. 1. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against all Defendants. ECF No. 10. In the motion Plaintiff states: I, Karanya-Marquis: Dudley, Plaintiff is asking the court to enter a default against the defendant(s).
AFFIDAVIT…I Karanya-Marquis: Dudley is essentially asking the court to note the defendant(s) failure to respond according to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (55). The basis for my request. (Summons Returned Executed) REFUSED certified mail…
ECF No. 10. A party is in default when the party “has failed to plead or otherwise defend”. Fed. R. Civ P. 55(a). Ordinarily, a defendant has 21 days to file an answer after being served with a complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). However, if a motion is served under Rule 12, the answer is due “within 14 days after notice of the court’s action” on the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). See Sunshine Kitchens, Inc. v. Alanthus Corp., 66 F.R.D. 15, 17 (S.D. Fla 1975) (“In view of the fact that no responsive pleading is due until the court disposes of pending motions to dismiss, the motion for entry of a default is not well-founded”). The Court’s docket reveals all Defendants filed a timely responsive pleading to the Complaint in the form of a Motion to Dismiss on October 2, 2024, which is currently pending before the Court. ECF No. 6. Thus, the time for Defendants to file an answer is extended until
the Court rules on the Motion to Dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). In the event the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss, Defendants will have 14 days to file an answer. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 10) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of December 2024. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Dudley v. Freedman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dudley-v-freedman-arwd-2024.