Rayes v. Houston et al
Filing
42
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff is ordered not to file any amended pleadings, or supplements to his pleadings, without first getting leave of the court pursuant to NECivR 15.1. Failure to comply with the court's local rules or the court 39;s orders may warrant dismissal of this action. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel (Filing No. 40) is denied, and his requests for leave to resurrect previously-dismissed claims, serve previously-dismissed defendants, and lodge additional allegations against the remaining defendants (Filing Nos. 39 and 40) are denied without prejudice to reassertion in a proposed amended complaint filed in compliance with this order and the court's local rules. The clerk of the court is directed to send to Plaintiff a copy of the court's local rules. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party with a copy of the local rules)(ADB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RICHARD RAYES,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT HOUSTON, MICHAEL
KENNEY, LARRY WAYNE,
SAMUAL SHAW, LANNETTE
GRIFFEN-MACK, and HOLLY
ROHDE,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
4:14CV3177
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
On April 14, 2015, the court allowed this matter to proceed to service of process
as to Plaintiff’s claims against Robert Houston, Michael Kenney, Larry Wayne, Samuel
Shaw, Lannette Griffin-Mack, and Holly Rohde in their individual and official
capacities. (See Filing No. 35 at CM/ECF p. 7.) Plaintiff filed motions on August 6
and August 20, 2015, seeking leave to resurrect previously-dismissed claims, serve
previously-dismissed defendants, and lodge additional allegations against the
remaining defendants. (Filing Nos. 39 and 40.1) Plaintiff also seeks the appointment
of counsel. (Filing No. 40.)
Plaintiff has already filed at least 11 motions and pleadings seeking leave to
amend his Complaint (See Filing Nos. 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28),
usually with no regard for this court’s local rules or the Federal Rules of Civil
1
It was not clear to the court whether Plaintiff intended to prosecute an appeal
to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Filing Number 40. The court elected not to
file the document as a notice of appeal for three reasons: (1) despite being captioned
a notice of appeal, the body of the document did not reflect an intention to prosecute
an appeal; (2) any appeal at this point of the proceedings would be out of time and
frivolous; and (3) Plaintiff would be required to pay the full $505.00 appellate filing
fee if the document had been filed as a notice of appeal.
Procedure. While pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than other
parties, this principle has limits. Plaintiff must comply with this court’s local rules and
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Under the local rules of this court, any party who moves for leave to amend a
pleading, including a request to add parties, must attach a copy of his proposed
amended pleading to the motion to amend. NECivR 15.1. Plaintiff did not comply
with this requirement. While the court may consider amended pleadings as
supplemental to the original pleading in pro se cases, see NECivR 15.1(b), this case has
now proceeded to service of process and the court will not permit the piecemeal filing
of supplemental pleadings and requests to amend. The court will not require
Defendants to undertake the task of sorting through Plaintiff’s numerous filings in
order to piece together his claims against each of the defendants. Therefore, any
proposed amended complaint Plaintiff files in the future must not incorporate any part
of his prior pleadings. Rather, it must supersede Plaintiff’s prior pleadings and it must
contain all of his claims against all of the defendants.
The court will deny Plaintiff’s requests for leave to resurrect previouslydismissed claims, serve previously-dismissed defendants, and lodge additional
allegations against the remaining defendants. Plaintiff is ordered not to file any
amended pleadings, or supplements to his pleadings, without first getting leave of the
court pursuant to this court’s local rules. Plaintiff is cautioned that future filings that
do not comply with the court’s local rules may be disregarded or stricken. In addition,
failure to comply with the court’s rules or the court’s orders may warrant dismissal of
this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). The court will direct the clerk of the court to
send to Plaintiff a copy of this court’s local rules.
With respect to Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel, the court
cannot routinely appoint counsel in civil cases. 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
2
broad discretion to decide whether both the plaintiff and the court will benefit from the
appointment of counsel[.]” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). No such
benefit is apparent here at this time. Thus, the request for the appointment of counsel will
be denied without prejudice to reassertion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff is ordered not to file any amended pleadings, or supplements to his
pleadings, without first getting leave of the court pursuant to NECivR 15.1. Failure to
comply with the court’s local rules or the court’s orders may warrant dismissal of this
action.
2.
Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel (Filing No. 40) is denied, and
his requests for leave to resurrect previously-dismissed claims, serve previously-
dismissed defendants, and lodge additional allegations against the remaining
defendants (Filing Nos. 39 and 40) are denied without prejudice to reassertion in a
proposed amended complaint filed in compliance with this order and the court’s local
rules.
3.
The clerk of the court is directed to send to Plaintiff a copy of the court’s
local rules.
DATED this 26th day of August, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
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
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?