Chapman v. Douglas County Official's et al

Filing 106

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff is reminded to carefully read and follow the court's orders in this matter. Plaintiff's Motion to Clarify (filing 103 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA BILLIE JOE CHAPMAN, Plaintiff, v. TRAVIS JARZYNKA, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8:12CV370 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before me on Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify. (Filing 103.) Defendants have filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Motion. (Filing 105.) In the Response, Defendants argue that “[c]onsistent with his repetitive filings” Plaintiff’s Motion seeks clarification with regard to his arrest, appointment of an attorney to assist in his lawsuit, and a request for discovery. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 1-2.) Defendants assert that these matters have all been addressed by the court in multiple Orders and need not be disturbed. (Id.) I agree with Defendants. Plaintiff has history of filing repetitive and meritless motions in this matter. (See, e.g., Filings 90, 91, 92, and 99.) Indeed, in my last Memorandum and Order, I warned Plaintiff that if he continued to file meritless motions, he could be subject to sanctions, including, but not limited to, dismissal of this matter or being enjoined from filing any further pleadings, motions, or other items in this matter without prior authorization from this court. (Filing 100.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Hearing on the Motions that I denied (filing 101), which Magistrate Judge Zwart denied (filing 102). A week later, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Clarify. (Filing 103.) Although I decline to sanction Plaintiff at this time, I will remind him to carefully read and follow the court’s orders in this matter. See Settlemire v. Watson, 877 F.2d 13, 14 (8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (concluding any party proceeding pro se is expected to be familiar with and follow procedural rules); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803 (8th Cir. 1986) (court may dismiss action for pro se litigant’s failure to comply with any court order). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. matter. 2. Plaintiff is reminded to carefully read and follow the court’s orders in this Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify (filing 103) is denied. DATED this 8th day of January, 2015. BY THE COURT: Richard G. Kopf Senior 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

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?