Champion v. University of Nebraska Medical Center et al

Filing 112

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - All pending motions are denied: filings 103 , 104 , 105 , 107 and 108 . Any future filing proposed to be filed in this matter by Plaintiff shall be referred to the Supervising Pro Se Judge, Richard G. Kopf, or his success or, for review before filing, and the Clerk of the court is directed not to file any such pleading until this review has been completed. The Supervising Pro Se Judge shall review any such tendered filing and if it fails to comply with this Memorandum and Order and applicable law it shall be returned to Plaintiff without filing. A record of any such submission and return shall be maintained by the Clerk in the CM/ECF system under the "PS" designation or as otherwise directed by the Supervising Pro Se Judge. Ordered by Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

-PRSE Champion v. University of Nebraska Medical Center...ORDER FILING 112 FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS

Doc. 112

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA LUCILLE ANNE CHAMPION, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND PROGRAMS, and DR. SEVERA, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 8:05CV204

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on eight separate Motions, Letters, and Supplements filed by Plaintiff. As with Plaintiff's previous voluminous filings, these filings argue the merits of Plaintiff's claims and seek to reopen this matter. The court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint long ago because it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Filing Nos. 73 and 74.) The court has repeatedly denied Plaintiff's requests to reconsider that dismissal. (Filing Nos. 85, 89, and 102.) This matter has been closed for nearly three years. After careful review of the record and Plaintiff's recent filings, which are, at best, frivolous and nonsensical, the court sees no reason to reopen this matter. In addition, Plaintiff insists on submitting duplicative and frivolous requests to reopen this matter. Such filings have become abusive and are, at best, a waste of the court's time. Plaintiff will no longer be permitted to abuse this court's processes in this manner. Indeed, "[t]he Court may, in its discretion, place reasonable restrictions on any litigant who files non-meritorious actions for obviously malicious purposes and who generally abuses judicial process." In re Tyler, 677 F. Supp. 1410, 1412 (D. Neb. 1987) (citations omitted).

Dockets.Justia.com

W ith this in mind, all of the pending motions are denied. In addition, the Clerk of the court will be directed to accept no further filings from Plaintiff in this matter except for a notice of appeal. In the event that Plaintiff continues to submit frivolous pleadings to the court, the Clerk of the court will return the proposed filing to Plaintiff without filing it, as set forth below. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. All pending motions are denied; and

2. Any future filing proposed to be filed in this matter by Plaintiff shall be referred to the Supervising Pro Se Judge, Richard G. Kopf, or his successor, for review before filing, and the Clerk of the court is directed not to file any such pleading until this review has been completed. The Supervising Pro Se Judge shall review any such tendered filing and if it fails to comply with this Memorandum and Order and applicable law it shall be returned to Plaintiff without filing. A record of any such submission and return shall be maintained by the Clerk in the CM/ECF system under the "PS" designation or as otherwise directed by the Supervising Pro Se Judge. DATED this 22nd day of November, 2010. BY THE COURT:

s/Laurie Smith Camp 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. 2