Hamilton v. Ross Correctional Inst.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Marcus G. Hamilton, et ai., Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:22-cv-1872 Vv. Judge Michael H. Watson Ross Correctional Institution, et Magistrate Judge Vascura al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Marcus G. Hamilton and Jay E. Michael (“Plaintiffs”) obtained an entry of default against defendant Scott Ahart (“Ahart”) in this multi-defendant case. ECF No. 36. Plaintiffs now move for default judgment against Ahart. ECF No. 41. The other Defendants are not in default. As the Sixth Circuit has explained: When a default is entered against one defendant in a multi-defendant case, the preferred practice is for the court to withhold granting a default judgment until the trial of the action on the merits against the remaining defendants. If plaintiff loses on the merits, the complaint should then be dismissed against both defaulting and non-defaulting defendants. Kimberly v. Coastline Coal Corp., 857 F.2d 1474 (Table) (6th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court sees no reason to depart from this general rule in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (providing that court may enter judgment “as to one or more, but fewer than all. . . parties only if the court expressly determines that

there is no just reason for delay.”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See Northiand Ins. Co. v. Cailu Title Corp., 204 F.R.D. 327, 329-30 (W.D. Mich. 2000) (denying a motion for default judgment were the plaintiff sought default judgment against some, but not all, defendants). The Clerk shall terminate ECF No. 41. IT IS SO ORDERED. , WAGn UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:22-cv-1872 Page 2 of 2