Valentine v. Brown et al

Filing 53

ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 48 in Case No. 8:16CV131; Filing No. 50 in Case No. 8:16CV174) is denied, without prejudice. Plaintiff's miscellaneous Motion (Filing No. 50 in Case No. 8:16CV131; Filing No. 51 in Case No. 8:16CV174) is denied, without prejudice. Member Cases: 8:16-cv-00131-LSC-FG3, 8:16-cv-00174-LSC-FG3Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
VERONICA VALENTINE,
Plaintiff,
v.
8 UNKNOWN JANE - JOHN DOE
OMAHA POLICE OFFICERS,
LISA VILLWOK, #1764, and
JENNIFER HANSEN, #1585,
Defendants.

VERONICA VALENTINE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF OMAHA, CHIEF OF
OMAHA POLICE SCHMADER,
UNKNOWN JOHN JANE DOE
POLICE, LISA VILLWOK, #1764,
and JENNIFER HANSEN, #1585,
Defendants.

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

8:16CV131
ORDER

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

8:16CV174
ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing
No. 48 in Case No. 8:16CV131; Filing No. 50 in Case No. 8:16CV174) and Motion
requesting appointment of counsel and to certify class (Filing No. 50 in Case No.
8:16CV131; Filing No. 51 in Case No. 8:16CV174).
Plaintiff moves the court to “compel defendants to provide us with [a] copy of any
OPD policy on strip searches[.]” Plaintiff does not identify when or how she requested
1

this document from counsel for defendants, nor does she identify the date, time, or place of
the personal consultation with counsel for the defendants in a sincere attempt to resolve
this issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and NECivR 7.1(i).

Moreover, the parties’ Rule 26

Report is due on January 30, 2017, and no progression order has been entered, nor has
discovery commenced. “Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, pro se
litigants are not excused from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law.”
Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984) (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S.
806, 834-35 n. 46 (1975). Therefore, the court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel,
without prejudice to refiling in the event that the defendants fail to cooperate with future
proper discovery requests.
Plaintiff again moves for appointment of counsel and purports to include a motion
for class certification. Plaintiff has made no further showing that the circumstances have
changed since the court denied Plaintiff’s requests on December 8 and 23, 2016,
respectively. The court therefore finds that appointment of counsel and certification of
this matter as a class is not warranted. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 48 in Case No.

8:16CV131; Filing No. 50 in Case No. 8:16CV174) is denied, without prejudice; and
2.

Plaintiff’s miscellaneous Motion (Filing No. 50 in Case No. 8:16CV131;

Filing No. 51 in Case No. 8:16CV174) is denied, without prejudice.

DATED: January 9, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge

2