Fletcher v. Houston et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's "Motion Requesting for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief" (Filing No. 15 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BARRY W. FLETCHER SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT P. HOUSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:12CV3179

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Barry W. Fletcher’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion
Requesting for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief.” (Filing No. 15.) Although this motion
is styled as one seeking injunctive relief, liberally construed, Plaintiff’s actual request for relief is that
the court order Defendants to turn over all relevant evidence.
Shortly after Plaintiff filed this action, the clerk’s office delivered to him a copy of the court’s
General Order Number 2007-12, which states that “[n]o discovery in pro se civil cases assigned to
a district judge shall take place until . . . a progression order is entered unless permitted by the court.”
(Filing No. 6 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Here, the court has not entered a progression order, and Plaintiff has
not convinced the court that allowing the parties to engage in discovery prior to the issuance of a
progression order is necessary. Therefore, Plaintiff’s discovery request will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s “Motion Requesting for Preliminary and
Permanent Injunctive Relief” (Filing No. 15) is denied.
DATED this 12th day of February, 2013.
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.