Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 9, 2024

McGee v. The City of Hercules

Judge
Thomas Hixson
Docket
3:23-cv-05161
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Judge Hixson denied McGee v. City of Hercules’s motion for default because the defendants answered and are actively defending the case.

Who this affects

Anthony McGee’s request for default relief was denied; The City of Hercules and the Hercules Police Department remain defendants actively defending the case.

What happened

In McGee v. The City of Hercules, Anthony McGee, who represents himself, asked the court to enter default and default judgment against the City of Hercules and the Hercules Police Department.

The court explained that default applies when a party has failed to respond or otherwise defend. The defendants filed an answer and are actively defending the case, so default was inappropriate. The court also explained that default must be entered before a party can seek default judgment.

Judge Thomas S. Hixson therefore denied McGee’s motion for default judgment. The order was dated May 9, 2024.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McGee v. The City of Hercules · No. 3:23-cv-05161
Judge
Thomas Hixson
Date
May 9, 2024

Background

Anthony McGee, who is representing himself, filed a motion seeking entry of default and default judgment against The City of Hercules and the Hercules Police Department.

Court’s reasoning

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) permits entry of default when a party against whom relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend. The court found that the defendants had filed an answer and were actively defending the case, making default inappropriate. The court also explained that entry of default is a prerequisite to seeking default judgment under Rule 55(b).

Ruling

The court denied McGee’s motion for default judgment. The order does not state that the case itself was dismissed or that the defendants prevailed on the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.