LEWANDOWSKI v. BUREAU OF PRISONS

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: March 22, 2021
• Docket: 1:19-cv-15710
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE __________________________________ : EUGENE LEWANDOWSKI., : : Plaintiff, : : Civil No. 19-15710 (RBK/AMD) v. : : ORDER BUREAU OF PRISONS., : : Defendants. : __________________________________ :

KUGLER, United States District Judge: THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Eugene Lewandowski’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 15); and THE COURT NOTING that “[t]here are numerous cases which hold that . . . [default] judgment cannot be entered against the government solely on its failure to comply with civil rules.” Arevalo v. United States, No. MISC. 05-110, 2008 WL 3874795, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2008); and THE COURT FURTHER NOTING that a “court may not enter a default judgment against the government merely for failure to file a timely response.” Greenbaum v. U.S., 360 F.Supp. 784, 789 (E.D.Pa.1973); and THE COURT OBSERVING that Plaintiff moves for an entry of default judgment against Defendant Bureau of Prisons because it failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s complaint; therefore IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for Default Judgment (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED. 1

Dated: 3/22/2021 s/ Robert B. Kugler ROBERT B. KUGLER United States District Judge

1 The Court notes that in the United States’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment it requests that we vacate the entry of default and deny the motion for default judgment. If the United States wishes to move to vacate the entry of default, it should file a separate motion on the docket requesting as such.