Federal Judge Donald J. Stohr issused an order Friday authorizing the

U.S. District Court clerk to enter a “default” against Bill A. Jakob in

the civil rights violation case filed against him. But, he ruled, an

award of damages is premature.

Stohr’s ruling against Jakob, who pleaded guilty in September to all 23 counts of a felony federal grand jury indictment related to his dealings in a sham lock sale and impersonating federal purchasing agents and law enforcement personnel, gave a Dec. 1 deadline for the filing of a joint scheduling plan addressing issues listed by the court in an Aug. 15 order.

Although Jakob has pleaded guilty and is scheduled for sentencing Dec. 19, Stohr notes in his order that other defendants in this case have yet to have issues against them decided in court. “Plaintiffs rightly acknowledge that damages must ultimately be supported by adequate proof,” wrote Stohr. “Furthermore, it is not the court’s practice to consider the entry of default against the defendant before claims against other active defendants are resolved on the merits. Once plaintiffs’ claims against the other ten defendants are subject to judgement, the Court will consider a properly filed and supported motion for default judgement against defendant Jakob.”

Robert Herman, who represents area residents who allege their civil rights were violated by Jakob, Gerald police officers, and members of the Gerald Board of Aldermen and its mayor, had sought a hearing on monetary damages through his request for a default judgement against Jakob.

The judge did rule, however, that Jakob did indeed fail to answer to an amended complaint which was served to him on Sept. 29. Therefore, the judge ruled, the court’s clerk would file a docket entry for default but not a default judgement.

“To the extent plaintiffs’ motion seeks the entry of judgement at this time, it is premature,” wrote Stohr. “A default constitutes a defendant’s admission of well-pleaded allegations of fact, other than as to damages, but does not alone support the entry of judgement against the defendant. The defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well-pleaded or to admit conclusions of law. In short, despite occassional statements to the contrary, a default is not treated as an absolute confession by the defendant of his liability and of the plaintiffs’ rights to recover.”