Nickman v. Zarraga et al

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's motion for extension (Filing No. 71 ) is granted. He shall file a brief in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment no later than March 17, 2017. Defendants shall have seven days to submit th eir reply brief and/or evidence in response. Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) motion (Filing No. 68 ) is denied. The clerk's office is directed to set the following pro se case management deadline: March 17, 2017: Check for Plaintiff's brief in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JOSHUA M. NICKMAN,
Plaintiff,

8:16CV262

vs.
JUAN M. ZARRAGA, Individual
Capacity; SHELBY L. RAWLINGS,
Individual Capacity; ANDREW L.
MCLEAN, Individual Capacity;
COLTON J. GUERRERO, Individual
Capacity; MICHAEL TUBBS,
Individual Capacity; JESUS J.
RAMIREZ, Individual Capacity; JAIME
LYN CRAFT, Individual Capacity;
JESSICA M. STROUP, Individual
Capacity; SCOTT B. ANDREALA,
Individual Capacity; ERIC JON
LITTLE, Individual Capacity;
JONATHAN R. TRIPP, Individual
Capacity; and AARON GRAY,
Individual Capacity;

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Extension of Time,
Motion in Objection to Summary Judgment, Verification Affidavit.” (Filing No.
71.) Plaintiff seeks a thirty-day extension of time to file an objection to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 6.) Plaintiff’s
motion is granted. Plaintiff filed his motion on February 15, 2017. He therefore has
until March 17, 2017, to file a brief in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment. Defendants shall have seven days to submit their reply brief
and/or evidence in response. See NECivR 7.1.

Additionally, the court previously ordered Plaintiff to file an affidavit or
declaration within fourteen days from February 10, 2017, that plainly sets forth (1)
the specific facts he hopes to elicit from further discovery, (2) that the facts sought
exist, and (3) that these sought-after facts are essential to resist the summary
judgment motion. (Filing No. 70.) The court warned Plaintiff that failure to do so
will result in summary dismissal of his Rule 56(d) motion (Filing No. 68). (Id.)
Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion will be denied. Although set forth in the form of an
affidavit, Plaintiff’s current filing (Filing No. 71) is insufficient to satisfy the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) because he fails to identify any specific facts
that he hopes to elicit from further discovery. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any
affidavit or declaration that satisfies the requirements of Rule 56(d).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s motion for extension (Filing No. 71) is granted. He shall
file a brief in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment no later
than March 17, 2017. Defendants shall have seven days to submit their reply brief
and/or evidence in response.
2.

Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) motion (Filing No. 68) is denied.

3.
The clerk’s office is directed to set the following pro se case
management deadline: March 17, 2017: Check for Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dated this 1st day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2