Chapman v. Douglas County Official's et al

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's request to "Recognize Supplemental Jurisdiction" (filing no. 39 ), liberally construed as a Motion to Supplement his Second Amended Complaint, is granted in accordance with this Memorandum and Or der. Plaintiff's Motion for Summons (filing no. 42 ) is denied as moot. Plaintiff's Motion for the Court to Take Judicial Notice (filing no. 48 ), liberally construed a Motion as a Motion to Supplement his Second Amended Complaint, i s granted in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Defendants E. Jones and Travis Jarzynka's Motions for Extension ofTime to File a Responsive Pleading (filing nos. 51 and 52 ) are granted. Defendants E. Jones and Travis Jarzynka's responsive pleadings are due March 17, 2014. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BILLIE JOE CHAPMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRIS ANDERSON, Detective, et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV370

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on several Motions filed by the parties. The
court will address each Motion in turn.
On December 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document asking this court to
“Recognize Supplemental Jurisdiction.” (Filing No. 39.) The court liberally
construes this document as a Motion to Supplement his Second Amended Complaint.
Nebraska Civil Rule 15.1 states that, in pro se cases, the court may consider an
amended pleading as supplemental to the original pleading. NECivR 15.1(b). Upon
careful consideration, the court will grant the Motion and consider filing number 39
as supplemental to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.
On the same day that he filed his request to “Recognize Supplemental
Jurisdiction,” Plaintiff also filed summons forms. (Filing No. 42.) The court liberally
construed these forms as a Motion for Summons. (See Docket Sheet.) In the forms,
Plaintiff appears to be seeking the court’s permission to serve Defendants Christopher
Anderson, E. Jones and Eric Rogers. (Filing No. 42.) However, the current record
before the court shows that summons have been returned executed with regard to each
of these Defendants. (See Filing Nos. 35, 36 and 50.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summons is denied as moot.

On January 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for the Court to Take Judicial
Notice. (Filing No. 48.) In the Motion, Plaintiff asks the court to take judicial notice
that Defendants are not employees of the United States Marshals Office in Omaha,
Nebraska, and have violated federal and state laws. (Id.) The court will liberally
construe Plaintiff’s Motion as another Supplement to his Second Amended Complaint.
To the extent Plaintiff asks the court to consider the information contained in the
Supplement, his Motion is granted. To the extent Plaintiff seeks some other form of
relief, his Motion is denied.
On February 5, 2014, Defendants E. Jones and Travis Jarzynka filed Motions
for Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading. (Filing Nos. 51 and 52.) The
court will grant these Motions. Defendants E. Jones and Travis Jarzynka’s responsive
pleadings are due March 17, 2014.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s request to “Recognize Supplemental Jurisdiction” (filing no.
39), liberally construed as a Motion to Supplement his Second Amended Complaint,
is granted in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summons (filing no. 42) is denied as moot.

3.
Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Take Judicial Notice (filing no. 48),
liberally construed a Motion as a Motion to Supplement his Second Amended
Complaint, is granted in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.
4.
Defendants E. Jones and Travis Jarzynka’s Motions for Extension of
Time to File a Responsive Pleading (filing nos. 51 and 52) are granted. Defendants
E. Jones and Travis Jarzynka’s responsive pleadings are due March 17, 2014.

2

DATED this 10th day of February, 2014.
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.
3