Carper v. State of Nebraska et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's "Motion[s] to Proceed with Discovery" (Filing Nos. 15 and 22 ) are denied because, as the court informed Plaintiff previously, no discovery in pro se civil cases shall take place until the court enters a progression order. (See Filing No. 3 .) The court has not entered a progression order in this case, and the court declines to enter one prior to the resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's "Motion for Arb itration" (Filing No. 18 ), "Motion for Warning or Sanction" (Filing No. 19 ), "Motion for Expedited Prelimnary Hearing Injunctive Relief" (Filing No. 25 ), and "Motion for Criminal Complaint" (Filing No. 29 ) a re denied because they are frivolous, nonsensical, or both. Plaintiff is cautioned against filing frivolous motions. Filing frivolous motions could result in further action by this court, including sanctions. Plaintiff's "Motion for Exe mption of PACER fees" (Filing No. 23 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion after the court resolves Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, to which Plaintiff has already responded. Defendants' Motion to Strike (Filing No. 26 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA JULIE LYNN CARPER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF NEBRASKA, MICHAEL ) G. HEAVICAN, Chief Justice, ) JANICE WALKER, State Court ) Administrator, and OFFICE OF THE ) ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) ) Defendants. ) 4:12CV3182 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Julie Lynn Carper’s (“Plaintiff”) “Motion[s] to Proceed with Discovery” (Filing Nos. 15 and 22), “Motion for Arbitration” (Filing No. 18), “Motion for Warning or Sanction” (Filing No. 19), “Motion for Exemption of PACER Fees” (Filing No. 23), “Motion for Expedited Preliminary Hearing Injunctive Relief” (Filing No. 25), and “Motion for Criminal Complaint” (Filing No. 29). Also pending is Defendants’ Motion to Strike numerous filings by Plaintiff. (Filing No. 26.) Upon careful consideration, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s “Motion[s] to Proceed with Discovery” (Filing Nos. 15 and 22) are denied because, as the court informed Plaintiff previously, no discovery in pro se civil cases shall take place until the court enters a progression order. (See Filing No. 3.) The court has not entered a progression order in this case, and the court declines to enter one prior to the resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 2. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Arbitration” (Filing No. 18), “Motion for Warning or Sanction” (Filing No. 19), “Motion for Expedited Preliminary Hearing Injunctive Relief” (Filing No. 25), and “Motion for Criminal Complaint” (Filing No. 29) are denied because they are frivolous, nonsensical, or both. Plaintiff is cautioned against filing frivolous motions. Filing frivolous motions could result in further action by this court, including sanctions. 3. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Exemption of PACER fees” (Filing No. 23) is denied without prejudice to reassertion after the court resolves Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, to which Plaintiff has already responded. 4. Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Filing No. 26) is denied. DATED this 22nd 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. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?