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)

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