entry of default under Rule 55(a) must precede entry of default judgment under Rule 55(b)
How later courts described this case
- entry of default under Rule 55(a) must precede entry of default judgment under Rule 55(b)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
SIDNEY LADELL BROWN PLAINTIFF
ADC #111805
V. CASE NO. 3:19-cv-00054 JM
OLLIE COLLINS, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Pending is Plaintiff Sidney Ladell Brown’s Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc.
No. 27). For the reasons set out below, the Motion is DENIED.
Summons for Defendants Ronnie Williams and Standefer Tyler were served on
February 18, 2020, via certified mail delivered to the Osceola Police Department, 401 West
Keiser Avenue, Osceola, Arkansas 72370. Each envelope was signed for by a Jessica Hill.
(Doc. No. 15 at 2; Doc. No. 16 at 2).
By July 14, 2020, neither Williams nor Tyler had filed any pleading responding to
Plaintiff’s Complaint. That same day, the Court issued an order directing Williams and
Tyler to explain why default judgment should not be entered against each of them. (Doc.
No. 21).
Williams and Tyler responded to the Court’s Order on July 24, 2020, explaining
that they never received service of the Complaint. (Doc. No. 25). They further explained
that the dispatcher was not authorized to accept service or sign for certified mail on behalf
of either Williams or Tyler, personally. (Id.) Williams and Tyler now have authorized
Catherine P. Dean, City Attorney, to accept service on their behalves both in their official
and personal capacities. (Id.) Defendants filed their Answer on July 24, 2020. (Doc. No.
26).
Brown filed his Motion for Default Judgement on August 3, 2020. (Doc. No. 27).
While Brown seeks entry of default judgment, the Court will treat his motion as an
application for entry of default. Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 140 F.3d 781, 783 (8th
Cir. 1998) (entry of default under Rule 55(a) must precede entry of default judgment under
Rule 55(b)).
It is a pro se plaintiff’s responsibility to provide a proper address for service on a
defendant. Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993). Entry of default is not
warranted if a plaintiff fails to properly serve a defendant. See Printed Media Servs., Inc.
v. Solna Web, Inc., 11 F.3d 838, 843 (8th Cir. 1933).
Here, neither Williams nor Tyler received summons or the Complaint when signed
for by a dispatcher at the Osceola Police Department. Each Defendant answered Brown’s
Complaint well within 21 days after receiving it on July 22, 2020. (Doc. Nos. 25-1, 25-2).
Under these circumstances, default should not be entered against them.
Further, nothing in the record indicates that the addresses Plaintiff provided for
Williams and Tyler were correct, or that either Defendant was properly served. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (describing methods of service for individuals); Ark. R. Civ. P. 4
(describing methods of service for individuals). See also 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g) (waiver of
reply does not constitute admission of allegations in the complaint).
Accordingly, Brown’s Motion for Default (Doc. No. 27) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2020.
Go STA | DISTRICT JUDGE