FREDERIC BLOCK, District Judge
Pro se plaintiff Don M. Tellock ("Tellock") moves for a default judgment, or, in the alternative, to strike defendants' answer. For the reasons given below, Tellock's motion is denied.
I.
The facts and background of this litigation are presented in the Court's previous Memorandum and Order ("M O") denying Tellock's motion for a preliminary injunction, familiarity with which is presumed. See Tellock v. Davis, 2002 WL 31433589 (E.D.N.Y. 2002), aff'd, Tellock v. Davis, 02-9360 (2d Cir. December 2, 2003). In brief, Tellock filed suit against his landlord, alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the defendants' failure to file a timely answer was certainly negligent, the Court will not infer that it was a willful strategic decision. Further, the Court is particularly reluctant to issue a default judgment in a case where it has been held that the plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits. Such a decision would go against public policy and the clear directives of this Circuit. See, e.g., Am. Alliance Ins. Co., F.3d at 61 (holding that "strong public policy favors resolving disputes on the merits," and that therefore defaults were only appropriate when the court is faced with "egregious or deliberate conduct.")
CONCLUSION
Tellock's application for a default judgment or, in the alternative, to strike the defendants' answer, is denied.
SO ORDERED.