Chris Carty vs Julius Wilson et.al
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN CHRIS CARTY, Plaintiff, v. JULIUS WILSON, in his capacity as the Director of Prisons, and VINCENT FRAZER, in his capacity as the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2011-67 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ATTORNEYS: Chris Carty Red Onion State Prison – Pound, VA Prisoner pro se, Julius Wilson, in his capacity as the Director of Prisons Unrepresented entity, Vincent Frazer, in his capacity as the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands Unrepresented entity. ORDER Before the Court is the May 13, 2013, motion of Chris Carty (“Carty”), a pro se prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, for default judgment. Carty is currently incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison in Pound, Virginia. He filed the instant action on June 20, 2011. Carty subsequently filed a default judgment motion. Therafter, Carty was granted permission to proceed in forma Case: 3:11-cv-00067-CVG-RM Document #: 12 Filed: 03/20/14 Page 1 of 3 Carty v. Wilson, et al. Civil No. 2011-67 Order pauperis on March 12, 2014. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_11-cv-00067/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_11-cv-00067-1.pdf
SHA-256 661092b8fd9dfa3e2795fabcafacd0094f35f22d0121678ee252286de6b7c6ee
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-661092b8fd9d
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN CHRIS CARTY, Plaintiff, v. JULIUS WILSON, in his capacity as the Director of Prisons, and VINCENT FRAZER, in his capacity as the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2011-67 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ATTORNEYS: Chris Carty Red Onion State Prison – Pound, VA Prisoner pro se, Julius Wilson, in his capacity as the Director of Prisons Unrepresented entity, Vincent Frazer, in his capacity as the Attorney General of the Virgin Islands Unrepresented entity. ORDER Before the Court is the May 13, 2013, motion of Chris Carty (“Carty”), a pro se prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, for default judgment. Carty is currently incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison in Pound, Virginia. He filed the instant action on June 20, 2011. Carty subsequently filed a default judgment motion. Therafter, Carty was granted permission to proceed in forma Case: 3:11-cv-00067-CVG-RM Document #: 12 Filed: 03/20/14 Page 1 of 3 Carty v. Wilson, et al. Civil No. 2011-67 Order pauperis on March 12, 2014. There is no record evidence of any defendant receiving service of process. “[D]efault judgments are disfavored. Courts prefer adjudication on the merits.” Varnes v. Local 91, Glass Bottle Blowers Ass'n of U.S. & Canada, 674 F.2d 1365, 1369 (11th Cir. 1982); citing Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1981). A case involving a default judgment requires “strict compliance with the legal prerequisites establishing the court’s power to render the judgment.” Id. A plaintiff is not entitled to default judgment if he or she fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, which governs service of process. See, e.g., Walton v. Rogers, 860 F.2d 1081 (6th Cir. 1988) (citing Varnes v. Local 91, Glass Bottle Blowers Ass'n of U.S. & Canada, 674 F.2d 1365, 1369 (11th Cir. 1982)); see also Zeviar v. Local No. 2747, Airline, Aerospace & Allied Employees, IBT, 733 F.2d 556, 558 n.3 (8th Cir. 1984) (noting “no indication in the record before it that [the] defendant [] was properly served” in determining whether the district court should have entered default judgment against the defendant). Here, there is no record evidence that Carty ever served the defendants named in his complaint. In determining whether to grant a motion for default judgment, the Court must ensure Case: 3:11-cv-00067-CVG-RM Document #: 12 Filed: 03/20/14 Page 2 of 3 Carty v. Wilson, et al. Civil No. 2011-67 Order strict compliance with procedural rules. Without properly serving the defendants, Carty is not entitled to a default judgment in his favor. The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that Carty’s motion for default judgment is DENIED. S\ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge Case: 3:11-cv-00067-CVG-RM Document #: 12 Filed: 03/20/14 Page 3 of 3