Carper v. Besse et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's motions 15 , 17 and 18 because Defendants have properly filed a Motion to Dismiss (see filing 13 ). Accordingly, defendants need not file an answer or other responsive pleading unless the court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Defendants' Motion to Strike 19 is denied. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JULIE LYNN CARPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACK BESSE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:12CV3244

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Julie Lynn Carper’s (“Plaintiff”)
“Motion to Proceed on Merits and Deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss” (Filing No.
15), Motion for Default Judgment (Filing No. 17), and “Motion for Hearing and/or
Default Judgment” (Filing No. 18). Liberally construed, Plaintiff moves the court to
enter default judgment against Defendants because they failed to answer her
Complaint. Also pending is Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motions.
(Filing No. 19.) Upon careful consideration,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motions (Filing Nos. 15, 17, and 18) are denied because
Defendants have properly filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Filing No. 13.) Accordingly,
Defendants need not file an answer or other responsive pleading unless the court
denies Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

2.
Defendants’ Motion to Strike Filing Numbers 15, 17, and 18 (Filing No.
19) is denied. However, Plaintiff is cautioned against filing frivolous motions.
Filing frivolous motions could result in further action by this court, including
sanctions.
DATED this 29th day of April, 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