Glass v. State of Nebraska et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Filing No. 214 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
LEOURIETA B. GLASS,
STATE OF NEBRASKA, et al.,
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Amend Plaintiffs
Complaint and Add New Parties and Plaintiffs Brief to Defendants Motion to
Dismiss.” (Filing No. 214.) Plaintiff does not specify whether she seeks amendment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 or seeks relief from judgment pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. Regardless, for the reasons set forth
below, the court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied.
On May 3, 2012, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice for
failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Filing No.
212 at CM/ECF p. 2.) Plaintiff now seeks post-judgment leave to amend her
Complaint to add three defendants to this matter, including the undersigned judge,
Kathleen Neary (who is counsel for Defendant Rigoberto Campos in this matter), and
Kathleen Neary’s law firm. (Filing No. 214.) In addition, Plaintiff states in her
Motion that she did not receive notice of the court’s January 6, 2012, Memorandum
and Order, which required her to amend her Complaint in accordance with Rules 8
and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.; see Filing No. 193.)
Whether the court construes Plaintiff’s Motion as one seeking amendment or
one seeking relief from judgment, the Motion is futile, vexatious, and frivolous. First,
in response to Plaintiff’s statement that she did not receive notice of the court’s
January 6 Memorandum and Order, the court notes that Plaintiff sought and received
an extension of time to file an amended complaint in response to the court’s January
6 Memorandum and Order. (See Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue at Filing No. 194; see
also text-only order dated January 19, 2012, granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue.)
Thus, it follows that she received notice of the court’s order requiring her to amend
her complaint. Second, Plaintiff had more than 90 days in which to amend her
Complaint to comply with Rule 8 pleading requirements. She did not do so. Further,
she did not seek additional time in which to do so. Third, Plaintiff failed to offer any
explanation as to why the undersigned judge, Kathleen Neary, and Kathleen Neary’s
law firm should be added as defendants in this matter. The court can only assume
that Plaintiff’s motivation is dilatory, and she hopes to further delay the resolution of
this matter. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Filing No.
214) is denied.
DATED this 9th day of May, 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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?