alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW GUY MORET, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

POORNIMA RANGANATHAN; ANDREA 

DAILEY, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

OREGON STATE HOSPITAL, 

Defendant.

No. 21-35424 

D.C. No. 6:18-cv-01105-MK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Andrew Guy Moret appeals pro se from the district court’s summary 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 25 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-35424 

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising 

from the involuntary administration of medication during his pretrial detention. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. JL Beverage 

Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We 

affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Moret’s due 

process claims relating to the involuntary administration of medication after his 

administrative hearing because Moret received all of the process he was due. See 

Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 235 (1990) (holding that due process requires 

an evidentiary hearing before an independent decisionmaker when a prisoner 

challenges the involuntary administration of medication); U.S. v. Loughner, 672 

F.3d 731, 752 (9th Cir. 2012) (Harper’s due process protections apply to pretrial 

detainees).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Moret’s due 

process claims related to the involuntary administration of medication before his 

administrative hearing because it would not have been clear to every reasonable 

official that the involuntary administration of medication before a hearing was 

unlawful under the circumstances. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 

(2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a 

clearly established constitutional right.”); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 815 
3 21-35424 

(9th Cir. 2009) (“A right is clearly established when its contours are sufficiently 

defined, such that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing 

violates that right.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moret’s motion to 

reinstate his claims against defendants because Moret failed to demonstrate any 

basis for such relief. See Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 

F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987) (requirements for relief from judgment under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2)).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
(9 App. Div. 254.)

#### GARVEY v. LONG ISLAND R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 27, 1896.)

1. Private Nuisance—Evidence.

A finding that defendant railway company operated its turntable so as to constitute it a nuisance as to plaintiff, is warranted by evidence that it was operated so as to unnecessarily cause a vibration, which was communicated to plaintiff’s premises, causing great annoyance and damage, which condition was greatly augmented by casting thereon smoke, etc., accompanied by harassing noises.

•2. Nuisance—Railroad Companies—Powers.

Implied authority to a railway company to operate a turntable does not authorize its operation in such a manner as to constitute a private nuisance.

■8. Injunction—Judgment—Inconsistency.

A judgment enjoining as a private nuisance the operation of a railway turntable will not be disturbed as inconsistent because damages were refused.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Bernard F. Garvey against the Long Island Railroad Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and BARTLETT, HATCH, and BRADLEY, JJ.

Alfred A. Gardner, for appellant.

Josiah T. Marean, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The court below has found that defendant so conducts its business and manages its turntable situate upon its premises as to constitute the same a nuisance as to plaintiff and his premises. The evidence given upon the trial tended to establish that defendant so conducted its business as to unnecessarily cause .a vibration of its turntable, which was communicated to plaintiff’s premises, and caused great annoyance and damage; that this condh *398tion was greatly aggravated by casting thereon smoke, cinders, and ashes, accompanied by irritating and harassing noises. The evidence warranted the court in making the finding which it did, and supports the judgment which was entered thereon. Defendant seeks its reversal by claiming that it has authority for what it did in the statute authorizing its creation and operation, and hence no liability attaches thereto for its acts. It is not contended that there is any express power conferred in the statute authorizing it to maintain and operate the particular turntable and yard as it is now operated. But the claim is that it is within the clearly-expressed intention of the legislature, derived from the statute. The following authorities are abundant in answer to this claim: Cogswell v. Railroad Co., 103 N. Y. 10, 8 N. E. 537; Morton v. City of New York, 140 N. Y. 207, 35 N. E. 490; Booth v. Railroad Co., 140 N. Y. 267, 35 N. E. 592; Hill v. City of New York, 139 N. Y. 495, 34 N. E. 1090; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 317, 2 Sup. Ct. 719.

There is no force in the suggestion that the judgment is inconsistent in not awarding damages. The equitable powers of the court may be properly invoked to restrain the commission of a wrong of which it can take cognizance, and it may render any judgment essential to accomplish that end which is warranted by the evidence. We find no error.

The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Sugarcane Field Station: Canal Point, FL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Canal Point, Florida Sugarcane Field Station People & Locations







Alyssa  Kloos
                        Sugarcane Field Station

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (561) 924-5227
                        
                        
                        Fax: (561) 924-6109(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MATTHEW VOGT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFERSON COUNTY RECORDER'S 

OFFICE, 

Defendant. 

PAP AK, Magistrate Judge: 

3: 14-cv-O 1222-PK 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff Matthew Vogt filed this pro se action in for ma pauper is against Defendant 

Jefferson County Recorder's Office on July 31, 2014. Now before the court is Plaintiffs Motion 

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01222-PK Document 45 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 3
for Default Judgment and Relief (#37), seeking an entry of default judgment in his favor based 

on to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 55. 1 

"When a patiy against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to 

plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules and that fact is made to appear by affidavit 

or otherwise, the clerk shall enter the party's default." Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a). Whether to grant a 

judgment by default is within the discretion of the district court. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 

F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986). Factors which may be considered by the district court in 

exercising its discretion to enter default judgment include: 

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of 

plaintiffs substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) 

the sum of money at stake in the action, ( 5) the possibility of a 

dispute concerning material facts, ( 6) whether the default was due to 

excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. 

Eitel v. 1VfcCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Default judgments are ordinarily 

disfavored. See id. at 1472. 

Plaintiff argues, without supp01t, that "[n]o motion or answer was delivered timely" and 

he is therefore entitled to relief. Pl. 's Motion, #37, 1. However, the record reflects that 

Defendant timely filed its Answer (#32) on June 11, 2015 prior to the June 12, 2015 due date 

(#34). Additionally, Defendant declares that the answer was mailed to Plaintiff at his correct 

address and return mail was not received. Deel. of Theresa Franz, #40. Upon analysis of the 

record, Plaintiffs motion is without merit. 

1 Plaintiff improperly moves under Rule 12. 

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01222-PK Document 45 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 3
CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment (#37) is denied. 

IT rs so ORDERED 

· Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Hclnorable Paul J. Papak 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-01222-PK Document 45 Filed 08/17/15 Page 3 of 3
No. 07-12-0387-CR

Tawona Sharmin Riles From the 108th District Court

Appellant of Potter County

v. April 24, 2013

The State of Texas Opinion by Chief Justice Quinn

Appellee §

§

§

§

§

§

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated April 24, 2013, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those which

may have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
II

Calendar No. 417

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1677

[Report No. 105–218]

To reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the

Partnerships for Wildlife Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 25, 1998

Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BOND, Mr.

REID, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. WARNER, Mr. SMITH of

New Hampshire, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. ALLARD, Mr.

GRAHAM, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. REED, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. SMITH of Oregon, Mr. D’AMATO,

Mr. DEWINE, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. BRYAN, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. LOTT, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. GREGG, Mr. BUMPERS, Mr.

DASCHLE, Mr. FRIST, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. HATCH, Mr. DODD, Mrs.

MURRAY, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. SNOWE, Mr.

SPECTER, Mr. LUGAR, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. COVERDELL,

Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. THURMOND, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. HAGEL, and Mr. KERRY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

JUNE 19, 1998

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

A BILL

To reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation

Act and the Partnerships for Wildlife Act.
2

S 1677 RS

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wetlands and Wildlife

5 Enhancement Act of 1998’’.

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NORTH AMERICAN

7 WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT.

8 Section 7(c) of the North American Wetlands Con9 servation Act (16 U.S.C. 4406(c)) is amended by striking

10 ‘‘not to exceed’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘not

11 to exceed $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999

12 through 2003.’’.

13 SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF PARTNERSHIPS FOR

14 WILDLIFE ACT.

15 Section 7105(h) of the Partnerships for Wildlife Act

16 (16 U.S.C. 3744(h)) is amended by striking ‘‘for each of

17 fiscal years’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘not to ex18 ceed $6,250,000 for each of fiscal years 1999 through

19 2003.’’.

Calendar No. 417

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1677

[Report No. 105–218]

A BILL

To reauthorize the North American Wetlands ConAct. servation Act and the Partnerships for Wildlife

JUNE 19, 1998

Reported without amendment
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research: Kimberly, ID
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Publication Reprints
                    Other NWISRL Links
                        NWISRL Publications
                                    Imperfect SSR Finder
                                    Shiny App ServerSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Kimberly, Idaho Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research People & Locations







Myles L Miller
                        Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research

                        




                        
                        Physical Scientist
                        Phone: (208) 423-6518
                        
                        
                        Fax: (208) 423-6555(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### LUKE *v.*AVERA, sheriff, *et al.*

Where a judgment plaintiff files a petition against a sheriff and his deputy to show cause why they should not pay the money due on an execution in their hands, and in response to the rule nisi the respondents file answers; and where on the hearing the court orders the respondents to proceed at once to sell the property upon which the execution has been levied and to make the money, and, upon failure so to do, that the respondents show cause at the next term of court why the rule should not be made absolute, reserving the question of costs for further consideration, such judgment is interlocutory, and a writ of error thereto will not lie.

April 22, 1915.

Money rule; from Berrien superior court. Motion to dismiss.

*McDonald & Grantham*and *U. J. Bennett,*for plaintiff.

*Ilendriclcs & IiendricJcs,*for defendants.

Evans, P. J.

T. J. Luke applied for a rule against the sheriff and his deputy, alleging that he placed in their hands an execution in his favor against Moses Bembry and Joseph Bembry, that he pointed out certain property of one of the defendants, and that the money had not been made on his fi. fa.; and praying that the defendants be attached for contempt upon failure to show cause why they should not pay applicant the amount due on his execution. The court granted a rule nisi, and in response thereto the defendants filed their several answers, averring, that the execution was levied on certain property, which was advertised for sale; that the *397deputy sheriff took a forthcoming bond for the property, which was not produced on sale day; that the plaintiff was present on the day of sale and knew of the default of the defendant in fi. fa., and stated to the deputy sheriff that he was undecided as to what he would have the deputy sheriff do, viz., whether to bring suit on the bond or retake possession of the property; and that the deputy sheriff was awaiting the plaintiff’s further instruction. The case, came on to be heard, and the applicant orally moved for a rule absolute, which motion the court denied, and entered the following order: “After hearing argument on the within application, it is ordered that the sheriff and his deputy, J. B. Griner, proceed at once under said fi. fa. to sell said property levied upon and make said money; and upon failure, that they show cause why the rule should not be made absolute at the next term of this court. Let the question of cost remain open for further order. Judgment and order signed in open court, this March *23,*1914.” Error is assigned on this order.

A motion was made to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that the order or judgment excepted to is interlocutory. This motion must prevail. The case is still pending in the trial court. The order of the court is in the nature of a continuance of the case until the next term, upon terms. It is clearly an interlocutory judgment, to which a writ of error will not lie.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, C. J., absent.*
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Southern Insect Management Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Southern Insect Management Research People





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People

Regina Michelle Mullen    Biological Science Lab Technician /ARSUserFiles/13452/Mullen.jpg
 Contact Information USDA-ARS Southern Insect Management Research Unit141 Experiment Station RoadP.O. Box 346Stoneville, MS 38776 Ph: (662) 686-3689Fax: (662) 686-5421


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov