Herzog v. Wiesler et al

Filing 76

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This matter is before the court on its own motion. This matter may proceed on Plaintiff's due process claim only, as set forth in the court's March 2, 2009, Memorandum and Order and this Memorandum and Order. All othe r claims are dismissed without prejudice. No later than February 5, 2010, Defendants shall file an answer in response to Plaintiff's due process claim. All pending Motions are denied. A separate progression order will be entered progressing this matter to final disposition. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 2/5/2010: Deadline for answer to Plaintiff's claim. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ANDREW A. HERZOG, alleged mentally ill and dangerous person, Plaintiff, v. JOY WIESLER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8:09CV10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this matter on January 5, 2009. (Filing No. 1.) After initial review, the court permitted Plaintiff's due process claim against Defendants in their individual capacities to proceed. (Filing No. 11.) Since that time, Plaintiff filed three requests to amend his Complaint. (Filing Nos. 47, 51, and 53.) Plaintiff's first request to amend (filing no. 47) does not include any factual allegations but simply lists his claims, Plaintiff's second two requests to amend (filing nos. 51 and 53) were never signed. In response to both the original Complaint, and to the requests to amend, Defendants filed Motions for a More Definite Statement (filing nos. 26 and 45) and a Motion to Dismiss (filing no. 55).1 This matter has been pending for nearly a year. The court has carefully reviewed all of the filings in this matter and has determined that this matter may proceed as set forth in the initial review. To be clear, Plaintiff's due process claim Also pending are numerous frivolous motions filed by Plaintiff which seek "arrest warrants" for Defendants' "attempted murder" of him (filing no. 70), billions of dollars in "federal property" such as cars, cargo ships, chemicals, food preparation equipment, food, weapons, and ammunition. (See, e.g., Filing Nos. 65, 66, 67, and 68.) The court will not waste its time on such motions and Plaintiff is cautioned that he should cease filing frivolous motions.
1

against Defendants in their individual capacities only may proceed.2 Defendants have been served. Thus, Defendants shall file an answer to that claim in accordance with the schedule set forth below and this matter will be progressed in a separate progression order. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. This matter may proceed on Plaintiff's due process claim only, as set forth in the court's March 2, 2009, Memorandum and Order and this Memorandum and Order. All other claims are dismissed without prejudice. 2. No later than February 5, 2010, Defendants shall file an answer in response to Plaintiff's due process claim. 3. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this matter with the following text: February 5, 2010: Deadline for answer to Plaintiff's claim. 4. All pending Motions are denied.

5. A separate progression order will be entered progressing this matter to final disposition. January 25, 2010. BY THE COURT: Richard G. Kopf United States District Judge

Plaintiff's due process claim is based on allegations in the original Complaint that Defendants forcibly medicated him, and that he was allergic to that medication.
2

2