Goings v. Baldwin

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

FREDRICK GOINGS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 19-cv-00212-SMY ) KENT E. BROOKMAN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

NOTICE AND ORDER

This case is before the Court for case management. Upon the screening of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (Doc. 48), Defendant Childers was sent a request for Waiver of Service of Summons, which was returned unexecuted. (Docs. 49, 51). Childers was subsequently served with a Summons and his responsive pleading was due by December 22, 2020. (Doc. 62). To date, Childers has failed to move, answer, or otherwise plead in response to the First Amended Complaint.1 The Clerk of Court must enter default against a defendant who has failed to plead or otherwise defend. FED.R.CIV.P. 55(a). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to ENTER DEFAULT against Childers in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). 2) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transmit a copy of this Order and the entry of default to Plaintiff and Defendant Childers.

1 The screening order directed Defendants to “timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint” and states that Defendants “shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).” (Doc. 48, p. 11). Because the Court specifically ordered Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint, Defendant Childers cannot rely on the Prison Litigation Reform Act to avoid the entry of default. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2). See e.g., Vinning v. Walks, 2009 WL 839052, *1 n.2 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2009) (default against defendant was proper because the Court exercised its authority under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) by directing the defendant to file a reply to plaintiff’s complaint, and the defendant “disregarded that direct [o]rder”). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 3, 2021 s/ Staci M. Yandle_________ STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge