Andrews v. State of Nebraska et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff has 30 days to supplement the record with (1) the "surveillance footage" and (2) the "authentic 'document' from the internal affairs of the Omaha Police Department." Plaintiff must su bmit an affidavit authenticating both items. The clerk's office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: April 29, 2013: deadline to file supplement. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MICHAEL ANDREWS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FICKELL, Officer, et al., and )
HANZEK, Officer, City of
)
Omaha Police Department,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

8:11CV279

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on its own motion.
Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint in this matter on November
18, 2011, against Robert Fickel (“Fickel”) and David Hanzek
(“Hanzek”) (Filing No. 10).

In plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, he

alleges, among other things, that Fickel and Hanzek are law
enforcement officers with the Omaha Police Department who,
following Plaintiff’s arrest, strangled him and hit him in the
face with their fists and foreign objects (Filing No. 10 at
CM/ECF p. 5).
Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, a
Brief in support of Motion, and an Index of Evidence in support
of Motion (Filing Nos. 33, 34, and 35). In their brief, they set
forth a statement of

material facts that they argue entitles

them to judgment as a matter of law.

See NECivR 56.1(a)(1)

(stating the party seeking the entry of summary judgment in its
favor must set forth “a separate statement of material facts

about which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue
to be tried and that entitles the moving party to judgment as a
matter of law”).
Plaintiff filed two briefs in response to defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing Nos. 36 and 37).

In these

briefs, plaintiff refers to evidence he possesses that
contradicts defendants’ statement of material facts, including
“surveillance footage” and an “authentic ‘document’ from the
internal affairs of the Omaha Police Department.”
at CM/ECF p. 2.)

(Filing No. 36

However, plaintiff failed to file this evidence

with the Court, and it is unclear whether this omission was
intentional.

Therefore, in order to ensure the just resolution

of this case, the Court will provide plaintiff with an
opportunity to supplement the record.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)

(“If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or
fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as
required by Rule 56(c), the court may . . . give an opportunity
to properly support or address the fact . . . [or] issue any
other appropriate order.”)
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff has 30 days to supplement the record

with (1) the “surveillance footage” and (2) the “authentic
‘document’ from the internal affairs of the Omaha Police

-2-

Department.”

Plaintiff must submit an affidavit authenticating

both items.
2.

The clerk’s office is directed to set a pro se

case management deadline in this case using the following text:
April 29, 2013: deadline to file supplement.
DATED this 29th day of March, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

*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-