Voth v. Nooth et al

Filing 37

ORDER: The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion forDefault Judgment 33 and Plaintiff's Motion for PreliminaryInjunction 36 . Signed on 6/15/15 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (Mailed copy to plaintiff) (dsg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
FRANK E. VOTH,
Case No. 2:14-cv-01855-AC
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
MARK NOOTH, et al.,
Defendants.
MOSMAN, Judge.
Plaintiff,

an

inmate

at

the

Snake

River

Correctional

Institution, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§

1983.

Currently before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion for

Default Judgment (1133) and Motion for Injunctive Relief (#36).

I.

Motion for Default Judgment
Plaintiff seeks entry default against the Defendants on the

basis that Defendants did not file an Answer or other responsive
pleading at the time Defendants filed their Waiver of Service with
the Court, which was more than 90 days after the date Plaintiff's

1 - ORDER -

Complaint was filed.

The Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver

of Service of Summons (jfl3) issued by Magistrate Judge Acosta on
January 28, 2015 provides as follows:
If you [the Defendants] comply with this request and
return the waiver to the court, no summons will be
served. The action will then proceed as if you had been
served on the date the waiver is filed.
You must file
an answer or other responsive pleading within the time
limits set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a) (1) (A) or
(a) (3).

Doc. ltl3 (emphasis added) .
Defendants filed their Waiver of Service with the Court on
April 21, 2015.

Defendants filed their Answer on

which was within the time provided in
Accordingly,

the

Court

DENIES

Fed.

Plaintiff's

R.

May 11, 2015,
Civ.

Motion

P.

for

12(a).
Default

Judgment.
II.

Motion for Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff seeks entry of a preliminary injunctive relief in
the

form

of

an

order

enjoining

Defendant

Banner

from

"being

allowed to inflict cruel and unusual punishment upon Plaintiff,''
enjoining all Defendants from denying Plaintiff meaningful and
effective access to the courts, and enjoining Defendants Nooth and
Peters from refusing to release Plaintiff from the Administrative
Segregation

Unit.

This

is

Plaintiff's

fourth

request

for

preliminary injunction.
For the

reasons

set

forth

in

the Court's

orders

denying

Plaintiff's first three requests for preliminary injunction, the
2 - ORDER -

Court denies Plaintiff's fourth request.

With respect to the

access to the court and release from administrative segregation
claims,

the

Court

notes

Plaintiff's Complaint.
punishment

claim

Plaintiff

provides

those

are

not

at

issue

in

With respect to the cruel and unusual

against
no

claims

Defendant

evidence

Banner,

Defendant

the

Banner

Court
has

inflict cruel and unusual punishment against Plaintiff.

notes

or

will

Because

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the
claims upon which preliminary injunctive relief is sought, he is
not entitled to such relief.
CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for
Default

Judgment

(#33)

and Plaintiff's Motion for

Injunction (#36).
IT

rs so

ORDERED.

DATED this

3 - ORDER -

~ay

of June, 2015.

Preliminary