Denton v. Thrasher, 3:18-cv-05017

Plaintiff Michael Denton, a prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging prolonged administrative segregation, inadequate mental-health care, retaliatory treatment, unconstitutional conditions, and mail censorship. He filed a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 18).
The Court recommended dismissal of several defendants and ordered service on the remaining defendants; defendants waived service on June 21, 2018 (giving them an extended answer deadline).
Before defendants appeared, Denton filed: (1) a Motion for Default Judgment seeking $5 million (Dkt. 27) and (2) an Emergency Motion for Court intervention to return a box of his legal materials (Dkt. 25).
After some defendants appeared, Denton filed a Second Emergency Motion seeking a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction to compel return of the box (Dkt. 36); several defendants responded and others later waived service.
The Magistrate Judge concluded defendants’ waivers extended their time to answer (so no default at the time Denton moved) and found Denton’s emergency requests concerned property return unrelated to claims in the Second Amended Complaint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether default judgment was warranted for failure to timely answer	Denton argued defendants failed to timely respond and sought $5 million default judgment	Defendants had timely filed waivers of service on June 21, 2018, extending their answer deadline to July 23, 2018	Denied — waivers extended the answer deadline, so no default when Denton moved
Whether preliminary injunctive/TRO relief should compel return of a box of legal materials	Denton asked the court to order return of his legal documents immediately	Defendants implicitly argued (through responses) that the relief sought was not tied to the Second Amended Complaint and thus inappropriate for preliminary relief in this case	Denied — requested relief concerns matters outside the scope of the underlying complaint and is not the same character of relief appropriate in a preliminary injunction

Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415 (9th Cir. 1984) (describing preliminary injunction purpose to preserve status quo and prevent irreparable injury)
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2012) (articulating the "serious questions" alternative test for preliminary injunctions)
De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212 (1945) (intermediate relief in injunctions should be of same character as final relief)
Kaimowitz v. Orlando, 122 F.3d 41 (11th Cir. 1997) (discussing limits on injunctions that go beyond issues in the underlying action)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to file objections to a magistrate judge's report may waive appellate review)