Brown v. Dept. of Health & Human Svs. et al

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Motions to Appoint Counsel dated October 7, 2014, and January 6, 2015 (Filing Nos. 8 and 21 ) are denied as moot in light of Plaintiff's later-filed Motion to Appoint Counsel date d February 19, 2015 (Filing No. 30 ). Plaintiff's latest request for the appointment of counsel (Filing No. 30 ) will remain pending and will be considered in conjunction with the court's review of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider (Filing No. 18 ) will remain pending and will be considered in conjunction with the court's review of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's "Motion in Support of Complaint" (Filin g No. 29 ) is an improper second response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and is denied. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to amend his claims to include additional allegations of retaliation, he must do so in a properly-filed amended complaint. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CORNELIUS BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN
SVS., TI LINN BOUER, Facility
Operating Officer, CHRIS BO
SIMMONS, Assoc. Facility Officer,
JOHN KROLL, Director of Nursing,
LORI STRONG, Asst. Unit
Supervisor, DIANNA MASTNY,
Unit Supervisor, and MATTHEW
POKORNY, Patient,
Defendants.

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

8:14CV298

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court for case management. There are numerous
motions pending in this matter, including Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Filing No.
23) and Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint Counsel (Filing Nos. 8, 21, and 30), Motion
to Reconsider (Filing No. 18), and “Motion in Support of Complaint” (Filing No. 29).
The court has carefully reviewed the record and each of the pending motions. Upon
careful consideration,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motions to Appoint Counsel dated October 7, 2014, and
January 6, 2015 (Filing Nos. 8 and 21) are denied as moot in light of Plaintiff’s laterfiled Motion to Appoint Counsel dated February 19, 2015 (Filing No. 30).

2.
Plaintiff’s latest request for the appointment of counsel (Filing No. 30)
will remain pending and will be considered in conjunction with the court’s review of
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
3.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Filing No. 18) will remain pending and
will be considered in conjunction with the court’s review of Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss.
4.
Plaintiff’s “Motion in Support of Complaint” (Filing No. 29) is an
improper second response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and is denied. To the
extent Plaintiff seeks to amend his claims to include additional allegations of
retaliation, he must do so in a properly-filed amended complaint.
DATED this 20th day of February, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
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