Facio (P) wrote a bad check. P received notice that the check had bounced and thereafter sent a money order to cover the debt and expenses. Collection Agency Management instituted a civil action against P in a Utah state court based on the bad check. P failed to answer because he apparently believed that the money order had settled the controversy. A default judgment was entered against him. P filed a motion to set aside the default judgment pursuant to Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 55(c) and 60(b). The state court judge -- Jones (D) -- denied the motion because P failed to present proof of a meritorious defense as required by the Utah Supreme Court's interpretation of Rules 55(c) and 60(b). The judgment was satisfied through garnishment of P's wages and bank account. P filed suit in federal district court seeking declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. P contends that Jones' (D)application of Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 55(c) and 60(b) [was] unconstitutional to the extent that a defendant [was] required to offer proof of a meritorious defense. The District Court agreed that the Utah procedural requirement that a meritorious defense be presented before a default judgment could be set aside was unconstitutional under Peralta. It set aside the state court judgment. Ds appealed