Collins v. Britten et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion to Amend Information (filing no. 21 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion in accordance with the Memorandum and Order. Respondents Motion for Clarification (filing no. 22 ) is granted. If Petitioner seeks to amend his Petition he may file a motion to amend and a proposed amended petition in accordance with the courts local rules by August 1, 2013. If Petitioner does not seek to amend his petition, he shall file and serve a brief in response to Respondents Answer by August 16, 2013. No later than 30 days after the filing of Petitioners brief, Respondent shall file and serve a reply brief. In the event that Respondent elects not to file a reply brief, he should inform the court by filing a notice stating that he will not file a reply brief and that the merits of the petition are therefore fully submitted for decision. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
THUNDER COLLINS,
Petitioner,
v.
FRED BRITTEN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:12CV3235

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Information
(filing no. 21) and Respondent’s Motion for Clarification (filing no. 22). The court will
address each Motion in turn.
I.

Motion to Amend

On May 28, 2013, Respondent filed an Answer and Brief in accordance with the
court’s February 14, 2013, Memorandum and Order. (Filing Nos. 19 and 20.) In
response, Petitioner filed a Motion to Amend Information along with an attached 62-page
brief. (Filing No. 21.) Liberally construed, Petitioner appears to be supplementing or
clarifying his claims. (Id.) To the extent Petitioner seeks to add or abandon claims, he
must clearly seek the court’s leave to do so by filing a motion to amend along with an
unsigned copy of the proposed amended pleading. See NECivR 15.1(a). Petitioner has
failed to do so. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Information is denied.
II.

Motion to Clarify

Because Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Information was unclear, Respondent has
asked the court to clarify whether Petitioner’s 62-page brief is a response to
Respondent’s Brief, or whether it is simply a brief filed in support of a motion to amend.
(Filing No. 22 at CM/ECF p. 2.) As set forth above, Petitioner’s Motion to Amend
Information is denied. However, in light of Petitioner’s pro se status, the court will
provide him with an additional opportunity to respond to Respondent’s Brief. This
matter shall therefore proceed as set forth below:

IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Information (filing no. 21) is denied without
prejudice to reassertion in accordance with the Memorandum and Order.
2.

Respondent’s Motion for Clarification (filing no. 22) is granted.

3.
If Petitioner seeks to amend his Petition he may file a motion to amend and
a proposed amended petition in accordance with the court’s local rules by August 1,
2013.
4.
If Petitioner does not seek to amend his petition, he shall file and serve a
brief in response to Respondent’s Answer by August 16, 2013.
5.
No later than 30 days after the filing of Petitioner’s brief, Respondent shall
file and serve a reply brief. In the event that Respondent elects not to file a reply brief,
he should inform the court by filing a notice stating that he will not file a reply brief and
that the merits of the petition are therefore fully submitted for decision.
DATED this 17th day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior 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