Sundquist v. State of Nebraska et al

Filing 33

ORDER - 1) The defendants' motion to file an amended answer, (Filing No. 27 ), is denied without prejudice to re-filing in accordance with the court's local rules. 2) Plaintiff's objection to the motion to amend, (Filing No. 32 ), is denied as moot. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Copy e-mailed to pro se party)(JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MARVIN DOUGLAS SUNDQUIST,
Plaintiff,

8:14CV220

vs.
ORDER
STATE OF NEBRASKA, et. al;
Defendants.
The defendants have moved to file an Amended Answer which adds the
affirmative defense of absolute immunity as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
Vierk and Schuldt. (Filing No. 27). The plaintiff opposes the motion stating, among
other things, that “[n]one of the Defendants’ actions were taken while fulfilling their
duties in either a judicial or legislative capacity,” and therefore they are not entitled to
absolute immunity. (Filing No. 32).
“A motion raising a substantial issue of law must be supported by a brief filed and
served together with the motion.”

NECivR7.1(a)(1)(A).

Although the defendants’

motion to amend raises substantial issues of law, the defendants have failed to file a
supporting brief.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1)

The defendants’ motion to file an amended answer, (Filing No. 27), is
denied without prejudice to re-filing in accordance with the court’s local
rules.

2)

Plaintiff’s objection to the motion to amend, (Filing No. 32), is denied as
moot.

September 17, 2015.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge