Zuck v. Peart et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (filing no. 48 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Plaintiff's Motion for Status (filing no. 57 ) is granted in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff's Motions for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing nos. 58 and 62 ) are granted. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment n o later than March 28, 2014. The Clerk of the court shall send TWO (2) summons forms and TWO (2) USM-285 forms to Plaintiff together with a copy of this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff shall, as soon as possible, complete the forms and send the co mpleted forms back to the Clerk of the court. In the absence of the forms, service of process cannot occur. Upon receipt of the completed forms, the Clerk of the court will sign the summons form, to be forwarded with a copy of the Complaint to the U.S. Marshal for service of process. The Marshal shall serve the summons and Complaint without payment of costs or fees. Service may be by certified mail pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and Nebraska law in the discretion of the Marshal. The Clerk of the court will copy the Complaint, and Plaintiff does not need to do so. Plaintiff will be given until April 14, 2014, to complete service of process on Defendants. If Plaintiff does not complete service of process by April 14, 2014, his claims ag ainst any unserved defendants may be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice, and this action will proceed only as to Plaintiff's claims against the defendants who have been served. The clerk's office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline with the following text: April 14, 2014: Deadline for Plaintiff to complete service of process. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party with Summons Forms)(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 several Motions filed by Plaintiff. (Filing
Nos. 48, 57, 58, and 62.)
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Filing No. 48.) In
Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
explained that “[i]ndigent civil litigants do not have a constitutional or statutory right to
appointed counsel. . . . The trial court has broad discretion to decide whether both the
plaintiff and the court will benefit from the appointment of counsel . . . .” Id. (quotation
and citation omitted). No such benefit is apparent here. The request for the appointment
of counsel is therefore denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Status. (Filing No. 57.) In his Motion, Plaintiff
asks the court to inform him whether Defendants have been served with his Amended
Complaint. (Id.) The court refers Plaintiff to filing numbers 27 through 36, and filing
number 47. The record before the court shows that Plaintiff’s summons were returned
unexecuted as to Defendants Frank Hopkins and Robert Houston. (See Filing Nos.
35 and 36.) In addition to requesting information about service of process, Plaintiff
asks the court to send him two summons and 2 USM-285 forms. (Filing No. 57.) The
court will direct the Clerk of court to send Plaintiff the requested forms. To the extent
that the information above provides Plaintiff with the relief he was seeking, his
Motion for Status is granted. To the extent Plaintiff seeks something further, his
Motion is denied.

Plaintiff has filed two Motions for Extension of Time to Respond to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Filing Nos. 58 and 62.) In his Motions,
Plaintiff asks for additional time to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment, which was filed on January 21, 2014. (Id.; see also Filing No. 51.) The
court will grant Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time. Plaintiff shall respond to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment no later than March 28, 2014.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (filing no. 48) is denied
without prejudice to reassertion.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Status (filing no. 57) is granted in accordance with
this Memorandum and Order.
3.
Plaintiff’s Motions for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing nos. 58 and 62) are granted. Plaintiff shall
respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment no later than March 28, 2014.
4.
The Clerk of the court shall send TWO (2) summons forms and TWO (2)
USM-285 forms to Plaintiff together with a copy of this Memorandum and Order.
Plaintiff shall, as soon as possible, complete the forms and send the completed forms
back to the Clerk of the court. In the absence of the forms, service of process cannot
occur.
5.
Upon receipt of the completed forms, the Clerk of the court will sign the
summons form, to be forwarded with a copy of the Complaint to the U.S. Marshal for
service of process. The Marshal shall serve the summons and Complaint without
payment of costs or fees. Service may be by certified mail pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

2

P. 4 and Nebraska law in the discretion of the Marshal. The Clerk of the court will
copy the Complaint, and Plaintiff does not need to do so.
6.
Plaintiff will be given until April 14, 2014, to complete service of process
on Defendants.
7.
If Plaintiff does not complete service of process by April 14, 2014, his
claims against any unserved defendants may be dismissed without prejudice and
without further notice, and this action will proceed only as to Plaintiff’s claims against
the defendants who have been served.
8.
The clerk’s office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline
with the following text: April 14, 2014: Deadline for Plaintiff to complete service of
process.
DATED this 3rd day of March, 2014.
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.
3