Payne v. Britten et al

Filing 93

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration and Determination of Qualified Immunity and to Toll Time Period for Filing an Answer (filing no. 84 ) is granted in part and denied in part in accordance with this Memorandum a nd Order. Defendants shall file their answer within 10 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (filing no. 86 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHRISTOPHER M. PAYNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRED BRITTEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:11CV3017

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and
Determination of Qualified Immunity and to Toll Time Period for Filing an Answer.
(Filing No. 84.) Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order. (Filing No.
86.) The court will address each Motion in turn.
I.
Motion for Reconsideration and Determination of Qualified Immunity and
to Toll Time Period for Filing an Answer
Defendants ask the court to reconsider its September 19, 2012, Memorandum
and Order, which granted Defendants’ converted Motion for Summary Judgment in
part and denied it in part. (See Filing Nos. 83 and 85.) Defendants disagree with the
court’s Memorandum and Order ask the court to determine the issue of qualified
immunity on the record currently before the court. (Filing No. 84.)
For the reasons stated in the court’s September 19, 2012, Memorandum and
Order, questions of fact remain as to whether Defendants’ continued detention of
Plaintiff’s incoming and outgoing mail violates his First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. (Filing No. 83.) Accordingly, Defendants’ request for Reconsideration and
Determination of Qualified Immunity is denied.

Separately, Defendants ask the court to toll the time period that the court
provided to file an answer until the court has ruled on their Motion for
Reconsideration and Determination of Qualified Immunity. (Id.) Although the court
will not reconsider its September 19, 2012, Memorandum and Order, it will provide
Defendants with an additional 10 days to file an answer.
II.

Motion for Protective Order

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Protective Order asking the court to seal the
record of the proceedings in this case from public access and to issue an order
prohibiting the parties from discussing or disclosing the facts of this case with
anyone. (Filing No. 86.) In support of this Motion, Plaintiff has submitted a sworn
affidavit stating that a Facebook page was created under the name “Christopher Keepme-where-I-belong Payne.” (Filing No. 88.) This Facebook page allegedly contains
information related to this case. (Id.) Plaintiff also states that Michael Lindgren, a
correspondent of Plaintiff, has received numerous harassing telephone calls asking
him to stop assisting Plaintiff. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.) Defendants have not responded
to Plaintiff’s Motion. (See Docket Sheet.)
“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
The burden of establishing good cause rests with the movant. General Dynamics
Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973).
After careful review, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish good
cause to issue a protective order in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is
denied.

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and Determination of Qualified
Immunity and to Toll Time Period for Filing an Answer (filing no. 84) is granted in
part and denied in part in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.
2.
Defendants shall file their answer within 10 days of the date of this
Memorandum and Order.
3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (filing no. 86) is denied.

DATED this 16th day of November, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
3