(PC) Morrison v. Matteson

Opinion

CURTIS LEE MORRISON, Case No. 2:23-cv-0850-DJC-JDP (P) Plaintiff, v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GISELLE MATTESON, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, has submitted a filing that operates as an opposition to defendants’ motion to modify the scheduling order and as a motion for default judgment. ECF No. 34. On January 4, 2024, the court directed service of plaintiff’s second amended complaint against defendants Keursten and Muhammad. ECF No. 16. Defendants filed a timely answer on March 25, 2024. ECF No. 22. Thereafter, the court issued a discovery and scheduling order, which set the dispositive motion deadline as June 13, 2025. ECF No. 29. On June 4, 2025, defendants filed a motion seeking to extend the dispositive motion deadline until July 14, 2025. ECF No. 32. Defendants sought the extension, in part, due to counsel’s workload and the substantial record that underlies this action. In light of counsel’s representations, the court found good cause to extend the dispositive motion deadline by thirty days. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff has since filed an opposition to the extension, arguing that any extension is prejudicial due to his age and illness (long COVID-19). ECF No. 34. While the court is sympathetic to plaintiff’s challenges, this court routinely grants extensions, such as the one requested by defendants, when good cause is shown. And the court found, having considered defendants’ filing, good cause. In the same filing, plaintiff separately moves for default judgment. ECF No. 34. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) provides that “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Here, defendants timely filed a response to plaintiff’s second amended complaint. See ECF No. 22. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for default against the defendants should be denied because defendants have filed a responsive pleading and have not failed to otherwise defend this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court assign a district judge to this action. Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, ECF No. 34, be DENIED. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

> IT IS SO ORDERED. ( | { Wine Dated: _ July 15, 2025 Q_——. JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE