Clark v. State of Nebraska et al

Filing 29

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's "Motion to Recuse From Case Statue Law Violation," Filing No. 28 , is denied. Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any future documents or motions in this closed case, except for a notice of app eal or appellate documents. The Clerk shall not accept any additional documents or motions filed by Plaintiff in this closed action, except for a notice of appeal or appellate documents. If Plaintiff files an additional document or motion, the Clerk shall return it to Plaintiff. [ Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KENNETH W. CLARK,
Plaintiff,

4:14CV3192

vs.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STATE OF NEBRASKA, ROBERT OTTE,
Judge; MOORE, Judge; JEFF CHEVRON,
Court of appeal; STEVEN BURNS, Judge;
GALE POKORAY, Judge;
PUBLIC
DEFENDER OFFICE, YARDLEY, Judge;
DISTRICT AND COUNTY ATTORNEY
REGIONAL CENTER,
LANCASTER
POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMISSION,
TROY HAWKS, administration of Nebraska;
and DR. MOORE, Lancaster county jail;
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Kenneth W. Clark’s “Motion to Recuse
From Case Statue Law Violation” filed on January 22, 2024. Filing No. 28 (spelling as
in original). The entirety of Plaintiff’s motion consists of the following: “Due process of
law; equal protection. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law, nor be denied equal protection of the law. Statue [sic] law rules
violation 24-722 codes.” Filing No. 28.
Plaintiff’s motion is nonsensical and does not set forth any reason justifying the
undersigned’s recusal. Moreover, there are no further proceedings that will take place
in this case from which the undersigned would need to recuse. This case has been
closed for over eight years, and Plaintiff’s filing of two unintelligible motions within the
last three months, see Filing No. 25; Filing No. 28, is a waste of the Court’s limited
resources. To prevent further wasting of this Court’s resources, the Court will prohibit

Plaintiff from filing any future documents or motions in this closed case, except for a
notice of appeal or appellate documents. See Grady v. Gaddy, No. 4:19-CV-1701 NCC,
2021 WL 1020766, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 16, 2021), aff'd, No. 21-1860, 2021 WL
8155004 (8th Cir. June 22, 2021) (imposing identical restrictions).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s “Motion to Recuse From Case Statue Law Violation,” Filing No.

28, is denied.
2.

Plaintiff is prohibited from filing any future documents or motions in this

closed case, except for a notice of appeal or appellate documents.
3.

The Clerk shall not accept any additional documents or motions filed by

Plaintiff in this closed action, except for a notice of appeal or appellate documents. If
Plaintiff files an additional document or motion, the Clerk shall return it to Plaintiff.

Dated this 5th day of February, 2024.
BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge

2