Frank Orlando Wells v. Jeffery Macomber, et al.

Wells v. Macomber · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · November 25, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-0521 CSK P

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of a request for default judgment and granted defendants' motion to opt out of the Post-Screening ADR Project. The court lifted the stay, dismissed the complaint because the defendants were sued in their official capacities, and granted leave to amend to assert claims against them in their individual capacities. The court also disregarded the plaintiff's unsigned motion to amend and proposed amended complaint.

Holdings

  1. Reconsideration was denied because plaintiff identified no new or different facts or circumstances, or other sufficient grounds, supporting reconsideration under Local Rule 230(j).
  2. The waiver-of-service process was not improper, and plaintiff was not entitled to default based on defendants' use of that process.
  3. Defendants' motion to opt out of the Post-Screening Early ADR Project was granted, and the stay was lifted.
  4. Claims for damages against the state, its agencies, or state officers sued in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent a waiver of immunity; the complaint was therefore dismissed with leave to amend to name defendants in their individual capacities.
  5. The court disregarded the unsigned motion to amend and proposed amended complaint, but plaintiff was not required to refile the motion because the court independently granted leave to amend.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff established grounds under Local Rule 230(j) to reconsider the denial of his motion for default judgment.
  2. Whether defendants' waiver of service was improper or dilatory and justified entry of default.
  3. Whether defendants could opt out of the Post-Screening Early ADR Project and whether the stay should be lifted.
  4. Whether the complaint's official-capacity damages claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
  5. Whether plaintiff's unsigned motion to amend and proposed amended complaint should be accepted.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (5)

  • United States v. Signed Pers. Check No. 730 of Yubran S. Mesle, 615 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Mendez, 585 F.3d 1183, 1189 (9th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985)(followed)
  • Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 344-45 (1979)(followed)
  • Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 30 (1991)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…