Dingman

(PS) Gifford v. Dingman

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 20, 20212:21-cv-01726California1,720 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROGER GIFFORD, No. 2:21-CV-1726-KJM-DMC Plaintiff, v. ORDER CLINT DINGMAN, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. Pending before the Court are the following motions: (1) Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment, ECF Nos. 12 and 20; and (2) Defendants’ motion to set aside the Clerk’s entry of defaults, ECF No. 15. 20 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff initiated this action on September 22, 2021. See ECF No. 1. Because Plaintiff paid the filing fees, the Court did not screen Plaintiff’s pro se complaint for sufficiency. On September 23, 2021, the Clerk of the Court issued summons for Defendants Clint Dingman, Robert Puckett, Sr., Michele Hanson, Melissa Tulledo, Hornbrook Community Services District (HCSD), and Bruce’s Towing/Radiator & Dismantling (Bruce’s Towing). See ECF No. 2. On October 25, 2021, process was returned executed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.