Kalincheva v. Neubarth et al

Filing 108

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's pending motions (Filing No. 102 ; Filing No. 106 ) are denied. This case is closed and Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief she seeks. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy emailed to pro se party) (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MAGDALINA KALINCHEVA, M.D.;
Plaintiff,

8:15CV44

vs.
JESSE NEUBARTH, VALENTYNA
LEZOVITSKAYA, child; E. ANDREW
WALTON, JERALD MASON, all from
Avenue Realty; CHICAGO TITLE
COMPANY, DONALD A.
MACHADO, MICHELLE HULLIGAN,
JANE DOE, Trini women 2 kids
Manteca CA; TODD CORREN, and
JOHN DOE, Renters at 535 W Vine St.,
9-12;

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Notice of
Removal” (Filing No. 102) and “Motion for Leave, Motion to Amend, and Motion
for Emergency Motion” (Filing No. 106). The court entered a Memorandum and
Order and Judgment dismissing this matter on February 10, 2015. (Filing No. 8;
Filing No. 9.)1 Plaintiff thereafter filed a “Motion to transfer” (Filing No. 10) and
an “Ex Parte Motion for Relief from Judgments/Orders, Leave to Amend After
Emergency Injunctive Relief” (Filing No. 11). The court entered an order on
March 12, 2015, denying Plaintiff’s motions. (Filing No. 12.) In its order, the court
warned Plaintiff: “Filing frivolous motions could result in further action by this

1

The court entered identical or similar Orders and Judgments in Plaintiff’s
companion cases in this district: Kalincheva v. Neubarth, et al., 8:15CV45, Filing
Nos. 7, 8 (D. Neb. 2015); Kalincheva v. Neubarth, et al., 8:15CV46, Filing Nos. 7,
8 (D. Neb. 2015).

court, including the imposition of sanctions including, but not limited to, filing
restrictions.” (Id.)
The court’s previous warning has not deterred Plaintiff from continuing to
file frivolous and malicious pleadings, including the two pending Motions.2 “The
Court may, in its discretion, place reasonable restrictions on any litigant who files
non-meritorious actions for obviously malicious purposes and who generally
abuses judicial process.” In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1293 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting
People of the State of Colorado v. Carter, 678 F. Supp. 1484, 1486 (D. Colo.
1986)) (internal citations omitted). With this in mind, the court denies Plaintiff’s
pending motions as frivolous and malicious. In addition, the court warns Plaintiff
that if she continues to file frivolous and malicious pleadings, the court will
impose sanctions including, but not limited to, revoking her CM/ECF filing rights
in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s pending motions (Filing
No. 102; Filing No. 106) are denied. This case is closed and Plaintiff is not entitled
to the relief she seeks.
Dated this 10th day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Supervising Pro Se Judge
2

The court is aware that Plaintiff has filed lawsuits in at least six other
districts throughout the country against Jessie Neubarth, each of which have been
dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted.
See Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 1:14-CV-01262-LJO, 2014 WL 5106432, at *1
n.1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2014) (listing cases). Plaintiff has been warned by another
district court that she would be subject to monetary sanctions for any additional
frivolous filings. See Kalincheva v. Neubarth, 2013 WL 5524815 (D. Mass. Oct.2,
2013).

2