Stewart v. Skorupa et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendants' Objection to Notice (Filing No. 20 ) is sustained. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Filing No. 21 ) is overruled. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT R. STEWART,
DOROTHY SKORUPA, et al.,
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to Serve
Subpoenas, and Motion for Default Judgment. (Filing Nos. 19 and 21.) Also pending
is Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas. (Filing
Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas
Plaintiff has filed a notice of his intent to serve subpoenas under Rule 45 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff is reminded that shortly after he 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. 4 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Here, the court has not entered a progression
order, and will not enter one until after it has ruled on Defendant Patricia Sue
Hartwell’s Motion to Dismiss. (See Filing No. 18.) Accordingly, the court will
sustain Defendants’ Objection to Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to Issue Subpoenas.
(Filing No. 20.) Plaintiff may not engage in discovery until the court enters a
Motion for Default Judgment
Plaintiff moves the court to enter default judgment against Defendants because
they “failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint within a short period of time.” (Filing
No. 21.) On January 9, 2013, the court granted Defendants a 30-day extension of
time in which to serve responsive pleadings, and ordered that they serve their
responsive pleadings by February 11, 2013. (Text Orders dated January 9 and 11,
2013.) Defendants served their responsive pleadings on February 11, 2013. (Filing
Nos. 17 and 18.) As such, Defendants filed their responsive pleadings within the time
prescribed by the court. Accordingly, the court will overrule Plaintiff’s Motion for
Default Judgment. (Filing No. 21.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Defendants’ Objection to Notice (Filing No. 20) is sustained.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Filing No. 21) is overruled.
DATED this 28th day of March, 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.
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?