Herzog v. O'Niel

Filing 104

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff shall have until March 27, 2012, to submit an affidavit or other evidence showing that defendant ordered NRC staff to read his legal mail. After March 27, 2012, the pending motion for summary judgment 89 will be ripe for resolution. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ANDREW A. HERZOG,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOCTOR STEPHEN O’NIEL,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:10CV313

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. The plaintiff, a patient
confined at the Norfolk Regional Center (“NRC”), claims that the defendant physician
ordered NRC staff to open and read the plaintiff’s legal mail. (See Filing No. 1.) The
defendant submitted a summary judgment motion, affidavit and brief stating that he
never issued such an order, if a staff member read the plaintiff’s legal mail the
defendant did not authorize it and the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.
(Filing Nos. 89, 91 and 92.) The plaintiff has not submitted any evidence in response
to the summary judgment motion. (See Docket Sheet.) Out of an abundance of
caution, the undersigned will give the plaintiff another opportunity to respond. If the
plaintiff has evidence, rather than supposition, that the defendant ordered NRC staff
to read his legal mail, then the plaintiff should submit an affidavit providing that
evidence. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: plaintiff shall have until March 27, 2012,
to submit an affidavit or other evidence showing that defendant ordered NRC staff to
read his legal mail.

After March 27, 2012, the pending motion for summary

judgment will be ripe for resolution.

DATED this 29th day of February, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
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