Zuck v. Peart et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: "Plaintiff's First Interrogatories to Defendant Frank Hopkins," which the court liberally construes as a motion seeking discovery, is denied. (Filing No. 18 .)Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WILLIAM ZUCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARIO PEART, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:12CV3252

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s document entitled “Plaintiff’s First
Interrogatories to Defendant Frank Hopkins,” which the court liberally construes as a
motion seeking discovery. However, Plaintiff has not served Defendant Frank Hopkins
with service of process. Moreover, 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. 8 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Here, the court has not entered a progression order, and
will not enter one until after Plaintiff has obtained service of process on Defendants as set
forth in the court’s order dated September 9, 2013. (See Filing No. 15.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: “Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories to Defendant
Frank Hopkins,” which the court liberally construes as a motion seeking discovery, is
denied. (Filing No. 18.)
DATED this 23rd day of September, 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.