Valentine v. Brown et al

Filing 60

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Objection, ECF No. 58 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 59 in 8:16cv174, to Magistrate Judge's Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 39 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 41 in 8:16cv174, is overruled . Plaintiff's Objection, ECF No. 56 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 57 in 8:16cv174, to Magistrate Judge's Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, ECF No. 53 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 54 in 8:16cv174, is o verruled. Plaintiff's Objection, ECF No. 59 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 60 in 8:16cv174, to Magistrate Judges Order Setting Schedule for Progression of Case, ECF No. 57 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 58 in 8:16cv174, is overruled. Member Cases: 8:16-cv-00131-LSC-FG3, 8:16-cv-00174-LSC-FG3. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

VERONICA VALENTINE,
Plaintiff,

8:16CV131

vs.
8 UNKNOWN JANE-JOHN DOE OMAHA
POLICE OFFICERS, LISA VILLWOK,
#1764, AND JENNIFER HANSEN, #1585
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

VERONICA VALENTINE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

8:16CV174
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

CITY OF OMAHA, CHIEF OF OMAHA
POLICE SCHMADER, UNKNOWN JOHN
JANE DOE POLICE, LISA VILLWOK,
AND #1764; and JENNIFER HANSEN,
#1585;
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Pro Se Plaintiff Veronica Valentine’s Objection
to Magistrate Judge’s Order (“First Objection”), ECF No. 58 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 59 in
8:16cv174, regarding an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No.
39 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 41 in 8:16cv174; Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s
Order (“Second Objection”), ECF No. 56 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 57 in 8:16cv174,
regarding an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief, ECF No. 53 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 54 in 8:16cv174; and
Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Order (“Third Objection”) (collectively, the

“Objections”), ECF No. 59 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 60 in 8:16cv174, regarding an Order
Setting Schedule for Progression of Case (the “Progression Order”), ECF No. 57 in
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s

8:16cv131, ECF No. 58 in 8:16cv174.
Objections will be overruled.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s First Objection “appeal[s] all of [the] 12-8-16 order . . .” denying
appointment of counsel, but her former Notice of Appeal (construed as an objection),
ECF No. 42 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 44 in 8:16cv174, has already objected to the same
Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 39 in 8:16cv131, ECF No.
41 in 8:16cv174. Thus, Plaintiff’s First Objection is duplicative of her former Notice of
Appeal, which this Court has already reviewed and overruled pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a).
Plaintiff’s Second Objection concerns her Motion to Compel Discovery, ECF No.
48 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 50 in 8:16cv174, and her Motion requesting appointment of
counsel and to certify class, ECF No. 50 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 51 in 8:16cv174.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery has become moot. Since filing her objection, the
Progression Order has been issued permitting discovery to commence, ECF No. 57 in
8:16cv131, ECF No. 58 in 8:16cv174, and the evidence Plaintiff seeks pursuant to her
Motion to Compel may be acquired during the ordinary course of discovery. Moreover,
that part of the Order, ECF No. 53 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 54 in 8:16cv174, denying
appointment of counsel and class certification was not clearly erroneous or contrary to
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Plaintiff’s Second Objection is, therefore, overruled.

2

Plaintiff’s Third Objection “appeal[s] all of the [Progression Order].”

The

Progression Order set dates for the progression of the case, denied Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel, ECF No. 54 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 55 in 8:16cv174, and denied Plaintiff’s
Motion requesting the court set a time to meet and confer under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, ECF
No. 55 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 56 in 8:16cv174. Plaintiff may now acquire the evidence
sought in her Motion to Compel during the ordinary course of discovery and pro se
cases are exempt from the disclosure and conference requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
Plaintiff’s Third Objection is, therefore, overruled pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) as no
part of the Progression Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Objection, ECF No. 58 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 59 in 8:16cv174, to
Magistrate Judge’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF
No. 39 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 41 in 8:16cv174, is overruled.
2. Plaintiff’s Objection, ECF No. 56 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 57 in 8:16cv174, to
Magistrate Judge’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief, ECF No. 53 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 54 in 8:16cv174, is
overruled.
3. Plaintiff’s Objection, ECF No. 59 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 60 in 8:16cv174, to
Magistrate Judge’s Order Setting Schedule for Progression of Case, ECF No.
57 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 58 in 8:16cv174, is overruled.

Dated this 8th day of February, 2017.

BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge

3