Valentine v. Brown et al

Filing 81

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motions (Filing Nos. 70 and 71 in Case No. 8:16CV131; Filing Nos. 71 and 72 in Case No. 8:16CV174) are denied. A party may object to a magistrate judges order by filing an objection within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the order. See NECivR 72.2(a). Failure to timely object may constitute a waiver of any objection. 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)(TCL)

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 Motions to Compel (Filing Nos. 70 and
71 in Case No. 8:16CV131; Filing Nos. 71 and 72 in Case No. 8:16CV174), filed on May
30, 2017. No defendant responded to the motions by the deadline of June 13, 201 7, and
thus the Court will consider the motions ripe for review.1
Plaintiff moves the court to:
1 See NECivR 6.1 and 7.1(b) (Effective December 1, 2016).

1

[C]ompel defendants to provide data showing scope of illegal searches
at bar [and to] see how many females [were] subjected to [such]
sea[r]ch under [the] illegal “policy” at bar, and, color break down of
how many were red, yellow, brown, black or white and categories
which most/least subjected to illegal search policy at bar which plainly
violates the Fourth Amendment bar injunction, estoppel against illegal
search and seizure.
(Filing No. 70 in Case No. 8:16CV131; Filing No. 71 in Case No. 8:16CV174). Plaintiff
also moves the court to:
[C]ompel discovery and direct defendants to provide us with all
records regarding our illegal search radio communications audio video
as well as [sic] and Rules Regulations promulgated Regulations strip
search [sic] as well as numerical accounting breakdown of how many
women [were] illegally stripped sea[r]ch[ed] as at bar during [the] time
one of white art[icle] III judges Kopf [has] been on [the] bench.
(Filing No. 71 in Case No. 8:16CV131; Filing No. 72 in Case No. 8:16CV174).
Plaintiff did not file any briefs or evidence with the above motions, which are
quoted in this Order in their entirety.
“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). “[P]arties who proceed pro se are bound by and must comply with all local and
federal procedural rules.” NEGenR 1.3(g).
The Court has repeatedly reminded Plaintiff of her duty to comply with relevant
procedural rules, despite her status as a pro se litigant. See Filing No. 7 at p. 7 in Case No.
8:16CV131; Filing No. 11 in Case No. 8:16CV174) (“The parties are bound by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and by the Local Rules of this court.”); Filing No. 53 at p. 2 in
Case No. 8:16CV131; Filing No. 54 in Case No. 8:16CV174 (“[P]ro se litigants are not
excused from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law.”); Filing No. 57 at p.

2

2 in Case No. 8:16CV131; Filing No. 58 in Case No. 8:16CV174 (“The parties must
comply with the provisions of NECivR 7.1(i) before filing a motion to compel.”)
Plaintiff does not identify when or how she requested documents 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). Plaintiff filed no brief or evidence in support of her motions. “A
party’s failure to brief an issue raised in a motion may be considered a waiver of that
issue.” NECivR 7.1(a)(1)(A). “If the court concludes that a motion raises a substantial
issue of law . . . it may treat the failure to file a brief as an abandonment of the motion.”
NECivR 7.1(a)(1)(B). “If a motion requires the court to consider any factual matters not
stated in the pleadings, when filing the supporting brief the moving party must also file and
serve supporting evidentiary materials not previously filed.”

NECivR 7.1(a)(2)(A).

“[A] party who does not follow this rule may be considered to have abandoned in whole or
in part that party’s position on the pending motion.” NECivR 7.1.
Moreover, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she properly made requests for
documents following the procedures set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Additionally, the
Court notes that on December 23, 2016, Defendants filed a Notice of Service of
Defendants’ response to a Rule 34 Discovery Request (Filing No. 45 in Case No.
8:16CV131), but Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any information regarding what
was produced, searched for and withheld from production, or objected to by Defendant in
that response.
In any event, based on the limited information before the Court, the items requested
by Plaintiff in her motions appear on their face to be irrelevant or outside the scope of
permissible discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)(“Unless otherwise limited by court
order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the
3

amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”).
Plaintiff has not complied with local or federal rules for requesting discovery and
filing discovery motions.

As such, the Court finds her motions should be denied.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff’s Motions (Filing Nos. 70 and 71 in Case No.
8:16CV131; Filing Nos. 71 and 72 in Case No. 8:16CV174) are denied.

ADMONITION
A party may object to a magistrate judge’s order by filing an objection within fourteen (14)
days after being served with a copy of the order. See NECivR 72.2(a). Failure to timely
object may constitute a waiver of any objection.

DATED: June 14, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ F.A. Gossett, III
United States Magistrate Judge

4