United States District Court, D. Delaware
Richmond, Howard R. Young Correctional Institution,
Wilmington, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
A. Griffith, Esquire, and Kaan Ekiner, Esquire, Whiteford,
Taylor & Preston, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware, Counsel for
Defendants Correct Care Solutions, LLC and Pamela Magee.
B. Drowos, Deputy Attorney General, and Ophelia Michelle
Waters, Deputy Attorney General, Delaware Department of
Justice, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendants Matthew
Fisher, Correctional Officer Glick, Correctional Officer
Malloy, and Staff Lt. Farrington.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
Ryan Richmond ("Plaintiff), an inmate at the Howard R.
Young Correctional Institution in Wilmington, Delaware,
proceeds pro se and has been granted in forma
paitperis status. He filed this civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of his
constitutional rights. (D.I. 3, 9) Presently before the Court
are several motions filed by the parties. (D.I. 75, 77, 80,
81, 85, 91)
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
requests entry of default as to Defendant Matthew Fisher
("Fisher") on die grounds that Fisher failed to
plead or otherwise defend. (D.I. 80) Fisher opposes the
docket indicates that Fisher was served on January 8, 2018.
(D.I. 78) Fisher, at the time proceeding pro se,
filed a letter/answer to the complaint on February 2, 2018,
construed as an answer. (See D.I. 79) Plaintiff 5led
die request for default on March 12, 2018. (D.I 80) On March
15, 2018, counsel filed an entry of appearance on behalf of
Fisher. (D.I. 83)
of default is not appropriate. Fisher timely appeared and
answered die complaint on February 2, 2018. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 55(a). Therefore, the Court will deny die request
for entry of default. (D.I. 80)
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
moves for default judgment against Defendant Patricia Munda
("Munda"). (D.I. 75) The Clerk of Court entered
Munda's default on October 16, 2017. (See D.I.
63) Plaintiff contends that default judgment is appropriate
on the grounds that Munda has been served, and she failed to
answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint.
Plaintiff notes that the Court is required to calculate the
appropriate amount of damages.
threshold matter, when ruling upon a motion for default
judgment, a court is required to determine if there are any
jurisdictional defects. See Allaham v. Naddaf, 635
Fed.Appx. 32, 36 (3d Cir. Dec. 17, 2015) (citing Bolden
v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 953 F.2d
807, 812 (3d Cir. 1991)). This includes consideration of
whether proper service of the complaint has been effectuated
because, in the absence of proper service, the court lacks
personal jurisdiction over a defendant. See e.g., Omni
Capital Int'l. Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff <& Co.,
Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) ("Before a federal
court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant,
the procedural requirement of service of summons must be
satisfied."); Grand Entm't. Group, Ltd. v. Star
Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 492 (3d Cir. 1993)
("A district court's power to assert
inpersonam authority over parties defendant is
dependent not only on compliance with due process but also on
compliance with the technicalities of Rule 4.").
on the allegations in the complaint (see D.I. 3, 9),
during the relevant time-frame Munda appears to have been
employed by Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC, the health
care provider for the Delaware Department of Correction
("DOC"), from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2014.
See Biggins v. Correct Care Solutions, Inc., 2016 WL
158500, n.1 at *1 (D. Del. Jan. 13, 2016). Connections
Community Support Programs, Inc. became the DOC's
healthcare provider on July 1, 2014. See Guilfoil v.
Comet Care Solutions, 2016 WL 5024190, at *3
(D. Del. Sept. 15, 2016). In the service documents
that Plaintiff submitted, he provided a Dover, Delaware
address for Munda. (D.I. 38) However, a review of the return
of service indicates that the United States Marshals Service
personally served Steve Davis ("Davis"), General
Counsel, at a Wilmington, Delaware address. (Id.) On
April 27, 2017, the Court was advised by an attorney who
represents Connections Community Support Programs, Inc. in
litigation before this Court that Davis is legal counsel for