Strawder v. Frakes, et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 42 ) 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
THOMAS DUANE STRAWDER,
also known as James T. Hall,
Scott R. Frakes, Director, Neb. Dept.
Corr. Services, State of Nebraska,
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Filing No. 42) of this court’s order dated January 19, 2017 (Filing No. 35). In that
order, this court dismissed Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without
prejudice to reassertion of a subsequent petition upon authorization by the Eight
Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Plaintiff states in his Motion that this court has the only copy of his petition,
exhibits, and evidence. (Filing No. 42 at CM/ECF p. 7.) However, the clerk’s
office does not maintain a paper file in any case unless required by law or local
rule. See NECivR 5.1(f). Nebraska Civil Rule 5.1(f) provides in relevant part:
(2) Original Documents Scanned and Discarded. The clerk scans
and discards original documents brought to the clerk for filing unless
the document’s size or nature requires that it be kept in a paper
format. An attorney who wishes to have an original document
returned after the clerk scans and uploads it to the System may, before
submitting the document to the clerk, ask the assigned judge for
written authorization for the document’s return. Authorization is
granted on a case-by-case basis. The court does not allow blanket
authorizations for the return of all original documents filed by an
attorney or office.
(3) Copies of Filings. A party who requests a copy of a paper
document submitted for filing must, at the time of filing, supply the
clerk’s office with the copy and, if the return is to be made by mail, a
self-addressed, stamped envelope.
NECivR 5.1(f)(2)-(3). Plaintiff never requested that his documents be returned to
him before he submitted them to the clerk. Plaintiff also never requested a copy of
his documents submitted for filing, and he did not, at the time of filing, supply the
clerk’s office with a copy of his documents and a self-addressed, stamped
envelope. The fact that Plaintiff appears pro se does not excuse his failure to
comply with these filing requirements. See NEGenR 1.3(g) (“Except as otherwise
expressly provided, all litigants who are proceeding pro se shall be bound by and
comply with all local rules and administrative procedures and with the federal rules
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Filing No. 42) is denied.
Dated this 31st of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District 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?