Valentine v. Brown et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff Veronica Valentine's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 32 in 8:16cv131, and ECF No. 34 in 8:16cv174, is denied without prejudice to reassertion at an appropriate time following the issuance of the progression order. Member Cases: 8:16-cv-00131-LSC-FG3, 8:16-cv-00174-LSC-FG3Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHRIS BROWN, #1873; 8 UNKNOWN
JANE - JOHN DOE OMAHA POLICE
OFFICERS, THE CITY OF OMAHA, LISA
VILLWOK, AND #1764; and JENNIFER
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CITY OF OMAHA, CHIEF OF OMAHA
POLICE SCHMADER, UNKNOWN JOHN
JANE DOE POLICE, LISA VILLWOK,
AND #1764; and JENNIFER HANSEN,
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No.
32 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 34 in 8:16cv174, filed by pro se Plaintiff Veronica Valentine
Valentine initiated her action in Case No. 8:16cv131 on March 25, 2016, naming
as Defendants Chris Brown, eight unknown Omaha police officers, and the City of
Omaha. She initiated her action in Case No. 8:16cv174 on April 19, 2016, naming as
Defendants the City of Omaha, the Omaha Chief of Police, and unknown police officers.
Liberally construed, both actions alleged a violation of Valentine’s rights under the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in connection with a search
conducted by Omaha police in July 2015.
The cases were consolidated on July 14, 2016; and Valentine filed an Amended
Complaint on September 12, 2016, ECF No. 12 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 16 in 8:16cv174,
which is now the operative pleading in both cases. The Amended Complaint names as
Defendants Lisa Villwok (“Villwok”) and Jennifer Hansen (“Hansen”), the officers who
allegedly conducted the search giving rise to Valentine’s actions. Counsel for Villwok
and Hansen entered his appearance and filed an Answer on their behalf, ECF No. 24 in
8:16cv131, ECF No. 29 in 8:16cv174.
The parties’ Rule 26 Report is due to the Court on January 30, 2017, and no
progression order has been entered, nor has discovery commenced.
In Valentine’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which also purports to include a
motion for class certification, she appears to argue that judgment should be granted in
her favor because on November 18, 2016, a judge of the Douglas County District Court
granted a motion in limine and a motion to suppress in a criminal proceeding related to
the search, finding that a statement made by Valentine following the search was
inadmissible. The order of the District Court of Douglas County in the related criminal
proceeding is not dispositive of the issues presented in this case, and the parties herein
will be permitted to proceed with discovery.
IT IS ORDERED:
Plaintiff Veronica Valentine’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 32 in
8:16cv131, and ECF No. 34 in 8:16cv174, is denied without prejudice to
reassertion at an appropriate time following the issuance of the progression
Dated this 23rd day of December, 2016
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?