United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
A. Bolden United States District Judge
Dashante Scott Jones, presently has thirteen motions pending
before the Court. For the reasons that follow, the motions
Motion for Joint Doctrine [ECF No. 65]
Jones has filed a second motion asking the Court to impose
liens on property and bank accounts of the defendants. In the
ruling denying this request before [ECF No. 57], the Court
explained the proper procedure to obtain a prejudgment
remedy. As Mr. Jones has not complied with those procedures,
his present motion is denied.
Motions for Sanctions [ECF Nos. 69, 81]
Jones asks the Court to sanction the defendants for moving to
set aside default. Mr. Jones considers the defendants’
motion disrespectful and assumes that by granting his motion
for default, the Court has determined that judgment in Mr.
Jones’ favor is required. Mr. Jones misunderstands the
two-step process required to obtain default judgment.
Jones filed a motion for entry of default for failure to
plead. The Court granted the motion based on a review of the
docket which showed that the defendants had not timely filed
their answer. Once default enters, the party in default
cannot present any evidence or be heard on the merits of the
claim. See Newhouse v. Probert, 608 F.Supp. 978, 985
(W.D. Mich. 1985). That party, however, is permitted to file
a motion to set aside the default. In fact, the rules
specifically permit it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c)
(“The court may set aside an entry of default for good
cause.”). Thus, the defendants’ motion is not
disrespectful to the Court.
it provides the Court with an opportunity to understand all
of the relevant facts before entering default judgment, which
is a harsh remedy and should be utilized only in extreme
situations. See New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99, 104
(2d Cir. 2005) (noting default judgment is the most severe
sanction applied by the court). As the defendants were
entitled to move to set aside default, sanctions for doing so
are not warranted. The motions for sanctions are denied.
Motions Relating to Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside
Default [ECF Nos. 75, 79, 80]
Jones has filed a motion seeking relief and a standing order
in the form of entry of default judgment for failing to
timely file the answer [ECF No. 75], a motion to enforce
judgment with a writ of execution and request to deny the
defendants’ motion to set aside default [ECF No. 79],
and a motion for entry of evidentiary rulings again asking
the Court to deny the defendants’ motion to set aside
default [ECF No. 80]. These motions arise from Mr.
Jones’ dissatisfaction with the defendants’
failure to file their answer and respond to his motion for
default judgment, pending at the time the motions were filed,
in a timely manner.
12, 2016, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to
set aside the default. The Court determined that Mr. Jones
had not established any of the factors required to deny a
motion to set aside default and concluded that default
judgment, a remedy for extreme situations only, was not
warranted. See ECF No. 89. As these motions seek
denial of the motion to set aside default, they are denied as
Motions relating to Perjury Claims [ECF Nos. 73, 77]
Jones has filed two motions seeking to amend the criminal
perjury charges he seeks to assert against the defendants. As
the Court explained in the Initial Review Order [ECF No. 23],
Mr. Jones cannot seek criminal prosecution of the defendants.
See S. v. D., 401 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“a
private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the
prosecution or nonprosecution of another”); Sattler
v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224, 227 (4th Cir. 1988) (neither
member of the public at large nor victim of a crime has a
constitutional right to have defendant prosecuted). As Mr.
Jones has no right to have any defendant criminally
prosecuted for perjury, his motions are denied.
Motions for Appointment of ...