DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 
 
CHRIS CARTY, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
JULIUS WILSON, in his capacity 
as the Director of Prisons, and 
VINCENT FRAZER, in his capacity 
as the Attorney General of the 
Virgin Islands, 
 
Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
 
) 
 
) 
Civil No. 2011-67 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)  
) 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
Chris Carty 
Red Onion State Prison – Pound, VA 
 
Prisoner pro se, 
 
Julius Wilson, in his capacity as the Director of Prisons 
 
Unrepresented entity, 
 
Vincent Frazer, in his capacity as the Attorney General of the 
Virgin Islands 
 
Unrepresented entity. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Before the Court is the May 13, 2013, motion of Chris Carty 
(“Carty”), a pro se prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, for 
default judgment.  
Carty is currently incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison 
in Pound, Virginia. He filed the instant action on June 20, 
2011. Carty subsequently filed a default judgment motion. 
Therafter, Carty was granted permission to proceed in forma 
Case: 3:11-cv-00067-CVG-RM   Document #: 12   Filed: 03/20/14   Page 1 of 3
Carty v. Wilson, et al. 
Civil No. 2011-67 
Order 
Page 2 
 
pauperis on March 12, 2014. There is no record evidence of any 
defendant receiving service of process. 
“[D]efault judgments are disfavored. Courts prefer 
adjudication on the merits.” Varnes v. Local 91, Glass Bottle 
Blowers Ass'n of U.S. & Canada, 674 F.2d 1365, 1369 (11th Cir. 
1982); citing Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396 (5th 
Cir. 1981). A case involving a default judgment requires “strict 
compliance with the legal prerequisites establishing the court’s 
power to render the judgment.” Id.  
A plaintiff is not entitled to default judgment if he or 
she fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, 
which governs service of process. See, e.g., Walton v. Rogers, 
860 F.2d 1081 (6th Cir. 1988) (citing Varnes v. Local 91, Glass 
Bottle Blowers Ass'n of U.S. & Canada, 674 F.2d 1365, 1369 (11th 
Cir. 1982)); see also Zeviar v. Local No. 2747, Airline, 
Aerospace & Allied Employees, IBT, 733 F.2d 556, 558 n.3 (8th 
Cir. 1984) (noting “no indication in the record before it that 
[the] defendant [] was properly served” in determining whether 
the district court should have entered default judgment against 
the defendant). 
Here, there is no record evidence that Carty ever served 
the defendants named in his complaint. In determining whether to 
grant a motion for default judgment, the Court must ensure 
Case: 3:11-cv-00067-CVG-RM   Document #: 12   Filed: 03/20/14   Page 2 of 3
Carty v. Wilson, et al. 
Civil No. 2011-67 
Order 
Page 3 
 
strict compliance with procedural rules. Without properly 
serving the defendants, Carty is not entitled to a default 
judgment in his favor.  
The premises considered, it is hereby  
 
ORDERED that Carty’s motion for default judgment is DENIED. 
 
 
  
 
 
S\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Curtis V. Gómez 
 
District Judge 
Case: 3:11-cv-00067-CVG-RM   Document #: 12   Filed: 03/20/14   Page 3 of 3