Joseph v. Paredes
- Jon Tigar
- 3:21-cv-03120
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Joseph v. Paredes, Judge Tigar denied Joseph’s request for default judgment because Paredes had responded.
The ruling affected Alonzo Joseph’s request for default judgment against J. Paredes; the underlying medical-needs claims were not decided.
What happened
In Joseph v. Paredes, Alonzo Joseph, a prison inmate proceeding without a lawyer, sued prison doctors under a federal civil-rights law, alleging they disregarded his serious medical needs. He asked the court to enter a judgment against J. Paredes because Paredes allegedly had not responded on time.
The court denied the request. It found that Paredes had appeared by filing a waiver of reply and a jury demand, and that the waiver was a valid response to the complaint. The court also noted that the clerk had not entered default against Paredes.
Judge Tigar concluded that default judgment was improper and terminated the request identified as ECF No. 35. The order did not decide whether Joseph’s medical-needs allegations were true.
The detailed version
- Joseph v. Paredes · No. 3:21-cv-03120
- Jon Tigar
- June 3, 2022
Background
Alonzo Joseph, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that prison doctors Gamboa and J. Paredes were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment. The opinion addresses only Joseph’s request for default judgment against Paredes.
Request for Default Judgment
Joseph argued that Paredes had failed to respond timely to the summons and complaint. The court denied the request. It found that Paredes had appeared on April 18, 2022, by filing a waiver of reply under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1) and a jury demand. The court explained that the waiver of reply was a valid response in this prisoner civil-rights action and that the record did not indicate it was untimely.
The court also stated that a motion for default judgment is improper when the clerk has not entered default against the defendant. The opinion indicates that no such clerk’s entry of default had been made against Paredes.
Disposition
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Joseph’s request for default judgment and stated that the order terminated ECF No. 35. The order did not resolve the underlying allegations about Joseph’s medical care.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.