Glass v. State of Nebraska et al

Filing 152

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motions to Strike (filing nos. 65 , 67 , 70 , 96 , 102 , 104 , 110 , 112 , 145 , and 148 ) are denied. Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Motion and Affidavit to Convene a Three-Judge Court and Injunction Relief (filing nos. 90 and 92 ) are denied. Plaintiff's "Motion for the Court to Inquire into the Truthfullness [sic] of Pleading Filed With This by Attorney Richard Gilloon for the Benefit of Defendant Oris J. Glass , Jr" (filing no. 136 ) is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal (filing no. 144 ) is denied. Plaintiff is cautioned against filing frivolous motions. Failure to comply with this Memorandum and Order will result in further action by this court, including sanctions if necessary. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LEOURIETA B. GLASS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:11CV211

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on 14 Motions filed by Plaintiff Leourieta B.
Glass (“Glass” or “Plaintiff”). As set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motions are denied.
MOTIONS TO STRIKE
Plaintiff has filed numerous Motions to Strike in response to Defendants’
Motions to Dismiss. (Filing Nos. 65, 67, 70, 96, 102, 104, 110, 112, 145, and 148.)
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss are properly filed Rule 12(b) motions. As such, the
court will not strike them, and Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike will be denied.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike are duplicative, frivolous, nonsensical, or
all three. Plaintiff is cautioned against filing frivolous motions. Failure to comply
with this Memorandum and Order will result in further action by this court, including
sanctions if necessary.
MOTIONS TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment and a “Motion and Affidavit
to Convene a Three-Judge Court and Injunction [sic] Relief.” (Filing Nos. 90 and
92.) These motions are duplicative of arguments that have already been raised by
Plaintiff and denied by the court. (See Filing Nos. 57 and 78.) As such, these
motions will be denied.

MOTION TO INQUIRE INTO TRUTHFULNESS OF PLEADINGS
Plaintiff has filed a “Motion for the Court to Inquire into the Truthfullness [sic]
of Pleading Filed With This [sic] by Attorney Richard Gilloon for the Benefit of
Defendant Oris J. Glass, Jr.” (Filing No. 136.) Plaintiff’s Motion is nonsensical.
Further, she has not provided any evidence or law to support her Motion. As such,
it will be denied.
MOTION FOR RECUSAL
Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Recusal of the undersigned judge. (Filing No.
144.) In her Motion, Plaintiff alleges the undersigned judge deliberately violated her
“liberties” in the past in Case Number 8:06cv699.1 The court has carefully reviewed
Plaintiff’s Motion and the filings in Case Number 8:06cv699. In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 455(a), the court finds that there is nothing indicating that the court’s
“impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or that there is any other basis for
recusal or reassignment in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal
(filing no. 144) will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike (filing nos. 65, 67, 70, 96, 102, 104, 110,
112, 145, and 148) are denied.

1

The court takes judicial notice that in Campos v. Barney G. Inc., et al.,
8:06CV699 (D. Neb. 2006), the court entered default judgment against three
defendants, including Glass. (Case No. 8:06CV699, Filing No. 15.) The court later
vacated the judgment entered against the defendants in light of an out-of court
settlement reached by the parties. (Case No. 8:06CV699, Filing No. 17.)
2

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment and “Motion and Affidavit to
Convene a Three-Judge Court and Injunction Relief” (filing nos. 90 and 92) are
denied.
3.
Plaintiff’s “Motion for the Court to Inquire into the Truthfullness [sic]
of Pleading Filed With This by Attorney Richard Gilloon for the Benefit of Defendant
Oris J. Glass, Jr” (filing no. 136) is denied.
4.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (filing no. 144) is denied.

5.
Plaintiff is cautioned against filing frivolous motions. Failure to comply
with this Memorandum and Order will result in further action by this court, including
sanctions if necessary.
DATED this 13th day of October, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Chief 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.
3