JACKSON v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al, No. 1:2013cv01378 - Document 140 (S.D. Ind. 2016)
Court Description: Entry Granting Motions for Entry of Default and Directing Further Proceedings - Accordingly, the plaintiff's Requests for an Entry of Default [dkt 122 and 129] are granted to the extent that the clerk shall issue an entry of default against A ydt consistent with Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Cooke has not responded to the plaintiff's motion to strike or the Court's Entry directing him to show cause why his answer should not be stricken. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion to strike Cooke's answer [dkt 125] is granted. The clerk shall issue an entry of default against Cooke consistent with Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When default has been entered pursuant to Rule 55(a), unless the damages are certain, the Court must determine the amount of damages that are appropriate. The plaintiff shall have through June 15, 2016, in which to provide evidence of the damages he alleges that defendants Cooke and Aydt are r esponsible for. Cooke and Aydt will have twenty-one days in which to respond as to the amount of damages alleged. The Court will then conduct whatever further proceedings are necessary. Copy to Parties via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 5/12/2016. (JLS)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION CURTIS JACKSON, Plaintiff, vs. COOKE , et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:13-cv-1378-TWP-MJD Entry Granting Motions for Entry of Default and Directing Further Proceedings I. Entry of Default This matte is before the Court on Plaintiff Curtis Jackson’s Requests for an Entry of Default [dkt 122 and 129]. In the Entry of April 5, 2016, the Court detailed Defendant Cooke and Defendant Christopher Aydt’s delinquencies in litigating this action. Cooke and Aydt were given a period of time in which to show good cause why default should not be entered against them. [dkt. 135]. Aydt has responded asserting that he has not received paperwork from the Court or the plaintiff because it was mailed to the wrong address. Aydt states that mail was sent to 512 Meridian Street, instead of his address of 215 Meridian Street. However, this assertion is not supported by this Court’s record. For example, the plaintiff provided a verified certificate of service in his Request for Entry of Default in which he states that he mailed the Request for Default to 215 Meridian Street. Dkt 122. In addition, the Court issued an Entry and Notice to Aydt on January 4, 2016, notifying him of his responsibility to file an answer or responsive pleading to the complaint. The Distribution on that Entry indicates that it was sent to 215 Meridian Street. Dkt. 119. Further, this Court received no notice that this Entry was returned as undeliverable to Aydt. Lastly, Aydt was warned in the Notice of Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons of his responsibility to file an answer or responsive pleading (Dkt. 106), but he failed to timely do so. Aydt has thus been given multiple warnings that his failure to timely respond to the complaint could result in the issuance of a default against him. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Requests for an Entry of Default [dkt 122 and 129] are granted to the extent that the clerk shall issue an entry of default against Aydt consistent with Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Cooke has not responded to the plaintiff’s motion to strike or the Court’s Entry directing him to show cause why his answer should not be stricken. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to strike Cooke’s answer [dkt 125] is granted. The clerk shall issue an entry of default against Cooke consistent with Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. II. Further Proceedings When default has been entered pursuant to Rule 55(a), unless the damages are certain, the Court must determine the amount of damages that are appropriate. The plaintiff shall have through June 15, 2016, in which to provide evidence of the damages he alleges that defendants Cooke and Aydt are responsible for. Cooke and Aydt will have twenty-one days in which to respond as to the amount of damages alleged. The Court will then conduct whatever further proceedings are necessary. Date: 5/12/2016 Distribution: Curtis Jackson 973802 Pendleton Correctional Facility Electronic Service Participant – Court Only Cooke 2500 E. Cotton Dr. Pimento, IN 47866 Christopher Aydt 215 Meridian St. Worthington, IN 47471
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
