1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALONZO JOSEPH, Case No. 21-cv-03120-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 9 v. DEFAULT JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT PAREDES 10 J. PAREDES, et al., Re: ECF No. 35 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), has filed a pro se action 14 pursuant to

, alleging that SVSP prison doctors Gamboa and Paredes were 15 deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 16 ECF Nos. 14, 15. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request that the Court enter default 17 judgment against defendant Paredes for failing to timely respond to the summons and complaint. 18 ECF No. 35. Plaintiff states that on April 25, 2022, he was informed by Defendants’ counsel that 19 defendant Paredes had appeared in this action, and that defendant Paredes has failed to timely 20 answer the complaint. ECF No. 35. Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Defendant Paredes has 21 answered the complaint. Defendant Paredes appeared in this action on April 18, 2022 by filing a 22 waiver of reply, which constitutes a valid response to the complaint,1 and jury demand. ECF No. 23 27. There is no indication that this waiver of reply was untimely.2 Moreover, where a clerk of 24 1 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1) allows a defendant responding to an action brought by a prisoner under 25

to file a waiver of reply in lieu of an answer. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1). A waiver of reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1) in lieu of an answer complies with Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i) requires a defendant to serve an answer within twenty-one days 27 after being served with the summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). The date the 1 court has not entered default against a defendant, as in the case here, a motion for default 2 || judgment against that defendant is improper. Ardalan v. McHugh, No. 13-CV-01138-LHK, 2013

, at *23 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2013); see also Norman v. Small, No. 099CV2235 WQH 4 || NLS,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2010) (denying default judgment because clerk 5 had not entered default). 6 This order terminates ECF No. 35. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. ® 8 Dated: June 3, 2022 es 9 JON S. TIGAR 10 nited States District Judge ll a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28