Brown v. Kroll et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time (Filing No. 14 ) is granted. Plaintiff shall have January 18, 2018, to file any response to Defendants' pending summary judgment motion. The court shall enter a separate progression order in order to progress this case to final resolution and permit the parties to make appropriate discovery requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MEE MEE BROWN,
Plaintiff,

8:17CV294

vs.
JOHN KROLL, Facility Operating
Officer at Norfolk Regional Center, In
Their Individual Capacities; BEVERLY
LEUSHEN, Licensed Administrative
Program Therapist, In Their Individual
Capacities; KATHY HERRON,
Licensed 3-East Unit Supervisor, In
Their Individual Capacities; TABITHA
WAGGONER, Provisionally Licensed
Group Facilitator and Social Worker, In
Their Individual Capacities; and
RHONDA WILSON, Registered Nurse,
In Their Individual Capacities;

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Memorandum and Motion for
an Enlargement of Time. (Filing No. 14.) Plaintiff seeks an enlargement of time
to respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement (Filing No. 11) and
also requests “time allowing Plaintiff to serve Interrogatories, and Declarations on
all named Defendants, and Plaintiff’s Witnesses.” (Filing No. 14 at CM/ECF
pp.2–3.) Within the text of her Motion, Plaintiff cites Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 56(f)1 and 372 (motions to compel disclosure or discovery).

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) states: “After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the
court may: (1) grant summary judgment for a nonmovant; (2) grant the motion on grounds not
raised by a party; or (3) consider summary judgment on its own after identifying for the parties
material facts that may not be genuinely in dispute.”

Plaintiff asserts that she
has been continuously denied her right to serve, or receive relevant
declarations from [5 named] patients . . . , as well as . . . from all
Defendant[s] . . . not only because of the Defendants[’] Motion for
Summary Judgment and Stay of Production,3 but also due to the
Attorney General (Ryan Gilbride) and Named Defendants . . .
misleading this court in [denying that] a 10 ft. No Contact Order [has
not been placed] on the plaintiff and ‘Jonathan Messing,” out of
retaliation.
(Filing No. 14 at CM/ECF p.1–2.) Plaintiff claims that due to her “current status,”
she has not been allowed to serve discovery requests on any of the Defendants, and
if allowed to do so, Plaintiff “can show clear and convincing facts on how Plaintiff
is being discriminated against” and “provide proof of a genuine issue of material
fact[].” (Id. at CM/ECF p.2.)
Pursuant to NECivR 7.1(b)(1)(B), Plaintiff is required to respond by
December 20, 2017, to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment filed on
November 29, 2017. Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment only
eight days after all Defendants filed an answer on November 21, 2017, and before
the court had entered a progression order. In their motion, Defendants argue not
only that they are immune from suit based on the qualified immunity doctrine, but
also that the evidence fails to establish a cause of action on either of Plaintiff’s
constitutional claims. (See Filing No. 12.) Accordingly,
2

The citation to Rule 37 arises from Plaintiff’s reference to a ruling of this court made in
another of Plaintiff’s pending civil actions, which permitted Plaintiff to bring a motion to compel
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 if she made “a request for specific, relevant information from a
named patient and identified treatment-team members . . . prevented the exchange of such
relevant information.” Brown v. Dawson, et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-569 (D.Neb.) (Filing No. 33
at CM/ECF p.3.) That ruling is not controlling here.
3

It appears Plaintiff is again referring to a ruling from one of her other pending cases as
no “Stay of Production” has been entered in this case.

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time (Filing No. 14) is granted.
Plaintiff shall have January 18, 2018, to file any response to Defendants’ pending
summary judgment motion.
2.
The court shall enter a separate progression order in order to progress
this case to final resolution and permit the parties to make appropriate discovery
requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
Dated this 19th day of December, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

3