IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

LUKE LEFEVER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, in their 

Official and Individual capacities; SCOTT 

FRAKES, in their Official and Individual 

capacities; DR. DEOL, in their Official and 

Individual capacities; WARDEN 

WASAMER, in their Official and Individual 

capacities; WARDEN GABLE, in their 

Official and Individual capacities; 

CRUNSHANK, A.W., in their Official and 

Individual capacities; KEVIN WILKEN, 

P.L.I.O, in their Official and Individual 

capacities; SARA ALLEN, D.O.N., in their 

Official and Individual capacities; 

OLTROGGE, U.M., in their Official and 

Individual capacities; DOMINO, U.M., in 

their Official and Individual capacities; 

SCHULTS, C.O., in their Official and 

Individual capacities; DE LOS SANTOS, 

C.O., in their Official and Individual 

capacities; and UNKNOWN POLICY 

WRITERS, in their Official and Individual 

capacities;

Defendants.

8:23CV187

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement his

complaint to allow consideration by this Court of the factual allegations alleged in the 

8:23-cv-00187-JFB-PRSE Doc # 30 Filed: 08/28/24 Page 1 of 4 - Page ID # 171
2

supplement along with those alleged in his operative complaint, Filing No. 27, his motion 

for service, Filing No. 29, a motion for restraining order and injunction, Filing No. 24, and 

a notice for hearing (which has also been filed as a motion) on the motion for restraining 

order and injunction, Filing No. 28. 

Plaintiff’s motion to supplement, Filing No. 27, is granted. The factual allegations 

contained in the supplement shall be considered along with the operative complaint on 

initial review by this Court. 

Plaintiff’s motion for service, however, is premature. This is so as while Rule 4 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires plaintiffs to serve each defendant with a 

summons and a copy of the complaint, “district courts cannot issue summonses in in 

forma pauperis prisoner cases until after screening the complaint for frivolousness and 

other defects under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).” See Jackson v. 

Herrington, 393 F. App'x 348, 353 (6th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Although the Court 

granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Filing No. 11, and the initial partial 

filing fee has been paid, see Text Entry dated June 15, 2023, the Court has not yet 

performed an initial review of the Complaint. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for service, Filing 

No. 29, is denied without prejudice as premature.

Plaintiff also filed a motion for an emergency injunction and restraining order, 

seeking a restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants Nebraska 

Department of Correctional Services, Director Jeffreys, Warden Boyd, and defendant

Neujahr from the “denial of Constitutional Access to the Courts and Disability 

8:23-cv-00187-JFB-PRSE Doc # 30 Filed: 08/28/24 Page 2 of 4 - Page ID # 172
3

Discrimination used as Retaliation and deprivation.” Filing No. 24. He also moves this 

Court to hold a hearing on his motion for restraining order and injunction. Filing No. 28.

Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right. 

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). Reviewing Courts “must 

balance the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the 

granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, 

480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987). “[C]ourts of equity should pay particular regard for the public 

consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 

24. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish (1) that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits; (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 

preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction 

is in the public interest. Id. at 20.

Here, Plaintiff's Motion fails as while he argues that he is receiving unequal access 

to prison law facilities, he has not established any of the elements that would warrant 

preliminary injunctive relief. Additionally, this Court has not yet determined if this matter 

may proceed to service of process as an initial review of the Plaintiff’s operative complaint 

has yet to be performed. For these reasons the Court will, therefore, deny Plaintiff's 

Motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, Filing No. 24, and 

motion for hearing regarding the same, Filing No. 28, without prejudice.

The next step in Plaintiff's case will be for the Court to conduct an initial review of 

Plaintiff's claims as set forth in his complaint and supplement to determine whether 

summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

The Court will conduct this initial review in due course. 

8:23-cv-00187-JFB-PRSE Doc # 30 Filed: 08/28/24 Page 3 of 4 - Page ID # 173
4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement, Filing No. 27, is granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and 

preliminary injunction, Filing No. 24, his motion for a hearing on the temporary restraining 

order and preliminary injunction motion, Filing No. 28, and his motion for service, Filing 

No. 29, all are denied without prejudice. 

3. The case shall progress consistent with this Memorandum and Order.

Dated this 28th day of August, 2024.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Court

8:23-cv-00187-JFB-PRSE Doc # 30 Filed: 08/28/24 Page 4 of 4 - Page ID # 174