Kurtz v. Miller et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION - This matter is before the Court on its own motion. Upon careful review of Kurtz's complaint, the Court finds that his allegations are nonsensical and he can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. A separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JOSEPH A. TIMOTHY KURTZ,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TASHA MILLER, JIM FISK,
)
nephew, BRUCE KOEHLER,
)
MATTHEW HIMELIC, son, CARRIE )
HIMELIC, if needed, GEORGE
)
HIMELIC, CHRISTOPHER MARYLAND,)
Friends and Family, and DAVID )
FLOTT,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

8:14CV139

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its own motion.

On

July 8, 2014, the Court conducted an initial review of
plaintiff’s complaint.

The Court determined it could not tell

from the information set forth in the complaint whether
jurisdiction is proper in this Court.

Plaintiff was to file an

amended complaint that set forth a short and plain statement of
the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction.

In addition, the Court

reserved the right to conduct further review of plaintiff’s
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

(See Filing No. 6.)

The deadline for filing an amended complaint has
passed, and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or asked

for an extension of time in which to do so.1

Upon careful review

of Kurtz’s complaint, the Court finds that his allegations are
nonsensical and he can prove no set of facts that would entitle
him to relief.

A separate order will be entered in accordance

with this memorandum opinion.
DATED this 4th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

1

The Court’s Memorandum and Order dated July 8, 2014, was
returned to the Court as “NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED” and
“UNABLE TO FORWARD.” (See Filing No. 7.) Kurtz, a frequent
filer in this Court, has been informed numerous times of his
obligation to inform the Court of address changes. See NEGenR
1.3(e) and (g) (requiring pro se parties to adhere to local rules
and inform the Court of address changes within 30 days). (See,
e.g., Kurtz v. France, et al., No. 8:14-CV-00117-JMG-PRSE; Kurtz
v. Williams, et al., 8:14-CV-00191-JMG-PRSE; Kurtz v. Miller, et
al., 8:14-CV-00139-LES-PRSE; and Kurtz v. Fisk, et al.,
8:14-CV-00180-JMG-PRSE.)
*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-