Cartwright v. State of Nebraska, City of Sidney, Cheyenne County et al

Filing 59

ORDER - Plaintiff's Request that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and 26 be Recognized and Followed (filing 48 ) is denied. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike (filing 49 ) is denied. Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File an Amended Supplemental C omplaint (filing 51 ) is denied. Plaintiffs Discovery Request (filing 55 ) is stricken from the record. Defendants Motion for Sanctions (filing 54 ) is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address on file with the Court. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (Copies mailed as directed) (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JENNIFER LYNN CARTWRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
V.
JORDAN BALL, CITY OF SIDNEY,
NEBRASKA, JONY MATHEWS,
Code Enforcer, and GARY
PEARSON, City Manager,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV246

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Request Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
16 and 26 be Recognized and Followed” (filing 48); Motion to Strike (filing 49); Motion for
Leave to File an Amended Supplemental Complaint (filing 51); and Discovery Request
(filing 55). This Order will also address Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (filing 54).
DISCUSSION
On October 27, 2015, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a “Request Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 16 and 26 be Recognized and Followed” (“Request”) (filing 48). Plaintiff
asserts that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c) “has not been addressed.” Rule 26(b)(2)(c) limits
discovery if the Court determines that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, can be obtained from a more convenient source, or is overly burdensome.
Plaintiff’s Request does not, however, clearly indicate how discovery sought by Defendants
is improper, or otherwise state how Rule 26 has not been followed. Plaintiff states that the
Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (“NEOC”) “has the entire case file in their
possession and the NEOC has certain criteria for records to be released.” However,
Defendants represent that they have not requested production of the NEOC case file.
As far as Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 is concerned, the Court is unclear as to what relief
Plaintiff seeks. Plaintiff has not identified any specific instance in which this Rule has not

been followed. Rule 16 generally deals with case management. As Plaintiff knows, an order
setting case progression deadlines has already been entered in this case. Plaintiff’s Request
will be denied.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike requests that the Court strike certain statements contained
in Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss (filing 27), Defendants’ Answer
to Amended Complaint (filing 29), and Defendants’ Motion to Compel (filing 43). Plaintiff
has not identified a legitimate basis for striking portions of these filings. Also, the Court
ruled upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel before Plaintiff filed her
Motion to Strike. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike will be denied.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Supplemental Complaint will
likewise be denied. Under the local rules of this Court, any party who moves for leave to
amend a pleading must attach a copy of their proposed amended pleading to the motion to
amend. NECivR 15.1. Plaintiff did not comply with this requirement.
Plaintiff also filed a Discovery Request with the Court. Plaintiff is advised that
discovery requests should be sent to opposing counsel, not filed with the Court. Similarly,
responses to discovery requests should not be sent to the Court via email or otherwise.
Instead, discovery responses, including responsive documents, should be provided to
Defendants’ counsel. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Discovery Request (filing 52) will be stricken
from the record.
Defendants have filed a Motion for Sanctions. Defendants request that the Court
dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint or, alternatively, find that all admissions contained
in Defendants’ Requests for Admissions be deemed admitted. In support of this motion,
Defendants assert that Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s order directing Plaintiff to
provide discovery responses by October 27, 2015. Defendants also assert that Plaintiff has
filed multiple motions with the Court in an effort to delay progression of the case.
It is true that pro se litigants, like all other parties, must abide by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court. NEGenR 1.3 (“Unless stated otherwise,
parties who proceed pro se are bound by and must comply with all local and federal
2

procedural rules.”). However, the Court believes that the imposition of sanctions is not
warranted at this time. Plaintiff has made some effort to comply with the applicable rules and
there is no evidence that her motions have been filed in order to delay this action.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff is now put on notice that she must comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and local rules of this Court. Plaintiff must also fully comply with
all orders of this Court. Future failure to do so will likely result in the imposition of
sanctions. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, she has demonstrated, through her various
filings, at least some understanding of the Federal and local rules.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Request that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and 26 be
Recognized and Followed (filing 48) is denied.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (filing 49) is denied.

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Supplemental Complaint
(filing 51) is denied.

4.

Plaintiff’s Discovery Request (filing 55) is stricken from the record.

5.

Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (filing 54) is denied.

6.

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the
address on file with the Court.

DATED November 30, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge
3