Rognirhar v. Southern et al

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The clerk's office is directed to update Plaintiff's address using the address provided in Plaintiff's July 6, 2012, filing. (Filing No. 69 .) The clerk's office is directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of the court's February 29, 2012, Memorandum and Order 66 , together with a copy of this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff is reminded to keep the court informed of his current address at all times while this case is pending. Plaintiff shall have until August 13, 2012, to submit a brief addressing the issue of damages in this matter. Defendants must respond to Plaintiff's brief no later than September 13, 2012. If the parties fail to respond, or a response is insufficient, the court may enter judgment for a nominal amount. The court directs the clerk's office to set a pro se case management deadline using the following text: Check for briefing on September 13, 2012. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party with filings as instructed)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
STRIDER ROGNIRHAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
TERRY S. SOUTHERN, or the
woman formerly known as such, and
TIMOTHY ELARIO,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:08CV51

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On February 29, 2012, the
court entered a Memorandum and Order in this matter requiring Plaintiff to submit a
brief addressing the issue of damages in this matter by March 30, 2012. (Filing No.
66.) This Memorandum and Order was returned to the court as undeliverable on March
16, 2012. (Filing No. 68.) No further attempts to deliver this Memorandum and Order
were made, as Plaintiff did not apprise the court of his current mailing address. (See
Docket Sheet.)
Plaintiff filed a Letter with the court on July 6, 2012, entitled “Complaint
Alleging Judicial Misconduct.” (Filing No. 69.) In the Letter, Plaintiff complains that
the court failed to respond to Plaintiff’s January 10, 2012, Motion to Reconsider. The
court notes that it actually granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider and ordered
briefing but, as set forth above, Plaintiff did not receive a copy of the court’s
Memorandum and Order because he failed to update his address with the court. See
NEGenR 1.3(e) and (g) (requiring pro se parties to adhere to local rules and inform the
court of address changes within 30 days).
On the court’s own motion, Plaintiff shall be given an additional opportunity to
submit a brief addressing the issue of damages in this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

The clerk’s office is directed to update Plaintiff’s address using the

address provided in Plaintiff’s July 6, 2012, filing. (Filing No. 69.)
2.

The clerk’s office is directed to mail to Plaintiff a copy of the court’s

February 29, 2012, Memorandum and Order, together with a copy of this
Memorandum and Order.
3.

Plaintiff is reminded to keep the court informed of his current address at

all times while this case is pending.
4.

Plaintiff shall have until August 13, 2012, to submit a brief addressing the

issue of damages in this matter. Defendants must respond to Plaintiff’s brief no later
than September 13, 2012. If the parties fail to respond, or a response is insufficient, the
court may enter judgment for a nominal amount.
5.

The court directs the clerk’s office to set a pro se case management

deadline using the following text: Check for briefing on September 13, 2012.
DATED this 11th day of July, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
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.
2