Opinion

Rainey v. Perkins Township Board of Trustees

Court
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Filed
Mar 31, 2023
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Dannie Rainey, Case No. 3:22-cv-42

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Perkins Township Board

of Trustees, et al.,

Defendants.

On January 10, 2022, pro se Plaintiff Dannie Rainey filed a complaint against multiple

political subdivision entities and certain individuals employed by those entities, raising claims under

both federal and state law in relation to his arrest. (Doc. No. 1).1 The complaint also named Yvette

Thompson as a Defendant. On March 30, 2022, Rainey filed a motion for default judgment against

Thompson for failure to timely respond to the complaint. (Doc. No. 12).

I deny this motion for default for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

55(a). Rule 55 governs the distinct events of entry of default and default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.

55. “Where a defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend the action, the application to the

clerk of court is a prerequisite to the entry of default judgment.” Equity Trust Co. v. Martin, No. 1:22-

cv-1004, 2022 WL 4281372, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 19, 2022) (citing Yang Zhang v. Clevenger, No.

1 Concurrent with filing his complaint, Rainey requested permission for electronic filing privileges.

(Doc. No. 3). I deny this motion without prejudice. See Greenberg v. Slatery, No. 3:22-cv-00325, 2022

WL 2032817, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. June 6, 2022). See also N.D. Ohio Amended Gen. Ord. 1998-01-1,

App’x B.

1:15-cv-720, 2015 WL 464465, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 4, 2015)). Here, Rainey has not complied

with Rule 55(a) and thus, “the Court cannot grant the motion for default judgment without the prior

entry of default by the clerk.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Rainey’s motion for default judgment is

denied without prejudice. (Doc. No. 12).

Additionally, on April 11, 2022, Defendant Perkins Township filed a motion for judgment

on the pleadings. (Doc. No. 15). Rainey opposed the motion on May 12, 2022. (Doc. No. 19).

Perkins Township requested an extension of time until May 30, 2022, to file its reply which I

granted. (Doc. No. 20; Non-Doc. Order May 18, 2022). Perkins Township filed its Reply on May

31, 2022, and subsequently, Rainey moved to strike the filing as untimely. (Doc. No. 22).

Rainey is correct that Perkins Township’s Reply was untimely filed. As explained by my

colleague Judge Lioi:

Since 1996, this Court has required attorneys to file documents with the Court

electronically through its Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF)

system. Rule 6 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure provides that, “[u]nless a

different time is set by a statute, local rule, or court order, the ‘last day’ [of a court

deadline] ends: (A) for electronic filing, at midnight in the court’s time zone.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6(a)(4)(A). Similarly, the Court’s local rules clearly warn that: Filing

documents electronically does not alter any filing deadlines. All electronic

transmissions of documents must be completed (i.e. received completely by the

Clerk’s Office) prior to midnight in order to be considered timely filed that day.

Spirit SPE Portfolio 2007-1 LLC v. Paxos, No. 5:14-cv-929, 2014 WL 5091740, at *2-3 (N.D. Ohio

Oct. 9, 2014) (citing L.R. Appendix B(10)).

Counsel asserted it did not file the Reply on May 30, 2022, because it was Memorial Day, a

federally recognized holiday, which he believed adjusted the time for filing to the next business day,

i.e., May 31, 2022. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3)(A) (when the clerk’s office is closed, the time for filing

is extended to the next day that is not a legal holiday). While reliance on this rule in these

circumstances, where the missed deadline was specifically proposed by Perkins Township, may be

misplaced, I decline to exercise my discretion to strike the Reply because no prejudice resulted from

the late filing. Newman v. Telb, No. 3:08-cv-711, 2010 WL 3666593, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2010)

(“A motion to strike is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.”). Accordingly, I deny

the motion to strike. (Doc. No. 22).

So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick

United States District Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.