Robinson v. Huerta et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 10 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MICHAEL P. HUERTA, Administrator,
Federal Aviation Administration;
LACEY N. JONES, Manager, Special
Investigations Branch, Drug Abatement
Division, Federal Aviation
Administration; BRENT HART,
Program Analyst, Office of Audit and
Evaluation, Federal Aviation
Administration; MARC L. WARREN,
(Acting) Chief Counsel, Federal
Aviation Administration; and A.
LESTER HAIZLIP, Regional Counsel,
Central Region, Federal Aviation
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s 114-page Motion for
Reconsideration. (Filing No. 10.) Plaintiff’s motion appears to disagree with the
Order dated January 7, 2014 (Filing No. 8), in which the court denied Plaintiff’s
request for a writ of mandamus (Filing No. 7), and to request that the court
interfere with his current state court criminal proceedings.
This case is closed. If Plaintiff disagreed with the Order dated January 7,
2014, his relief was to file a notice of appeal with the district clerk within 30 days
after entry of the judgment filed on January 7, 2014 (Filing No. 9). See Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). He did not. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts or
law which would cause the court to reconsider the Order and Judgment entered on
January 7, 2014. Further, if Plaintiff seeks relief against state officials for
violations of his constitutional rights in a wholly separate matter then he needs to
file a Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 that states his
claims for relief against those defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Filing No. 10) is denied.
Dated this 2nd day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Supervising Pro Se Judge
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?