Turnidge v. ODOC et al

1 - ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JOSHUA A. TURNIDGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ODOC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:25-cv-01435-MO
ORDER
MOSMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff, when initiating this prisoner civil rights case, filed a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (#3) along with his Complaint. He did not, however, serve any documents on
Defendants. Instead, it appears he relied upon the prison e-filing program to notify Defendants of
his filings.
On September 11, 2025, after Plaintiff cured a filing fee deficiency, the Court notified
Defendants of this lawsuit and asked whether they would be willing to waive service of the
Complaint. Defendants agreed to waive service of the Complaint and, on November 3, 2025,
filed their Answer (#9). They have not responded to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Case 2:25-cv-01435-MO Document 10 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 2

2 - ORDER
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 65(a)(1), no preliminary injunction may issue without notice to
the adverse party. Similarly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) prohibits the entry of a temporary restraining
order without notice to the adverse party absent a showing of "the efforts, if any, which have
been made to give the notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should not be
required." The prison e-filing program did not provide Defendants with notice of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction because Defendants had not yet appeared in the case, and they
did not waive the notification requirement as to the Motion. The Motion for Preliminary
Injunction is therefore denied for lack of notice to Defendants. The denial is, however, without
prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#3) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE 	Michael W. Mosman
United States District Judge
11/4/2025
Case 2:25-cv-01435-MO Document 10 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 2