Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-569 - Brown v. Dawson et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-569 - Brown v. Dawson et al
January 4, 2017
PDF | More
pro se party)(TCL)ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is provisionally granted, and the Complaint shall be filed without payment of fees. Plaintiff is advised that the next step in his case will be for the court to conduct an initial review of his claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of business. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to
February 3, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER - Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Filing No. 11), construed as a motion to file an amended complaint, is granted. Pursuant to NECivR 15.1(b), such Amended Complaint shall be considered as supplemental to, rather than as superseding, Plaintiff's Complaint (Filing No. 1). Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 12) is denied as moot, as Plaintiff has already been given leave to do so in Filing No. 5. The Clerk of Court shall reinstate as defendants those whom it terminated upon the filing of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint (Filing No. 1) and Amended Complaint (Filing No. 11) shall proceed in the court's normal course of business. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
March 9, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - On or before April 10, 2017, and subject to the exceptions set forth in paragraph (2) below, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that asserts her legal rights or interests and that sets forth a short and plain statement of the claims against each defendant. Plaintiff should be mindful to explain what each defendant did or is doing to deprive her of her constitutional rights, and what specific legal rights Plaintiff believes each defendant has violated. Plaintiff is not given leave to amend her allegations regarding the following purported claims because they shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or due to immunity: (a) Plaintiff's claims for money damages against defendant Department of Health & Human Services are dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. (b) Plaintiff's request for relief in the form of a transfer to outpatient therapy is denied, as release from confinement is not a remedy which may be awarded in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (c) Plaintiff's claim that defendant Linda Hansen belittled her is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1983. (d) Plaintiff's defamation claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1983. (e) Plaintiff's claims that the defendants failed to respond to her grievances and complaints in a timely fashion are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1983. Plaintiff's amended pleading will supersede, rather than supplement, her first two complaints (Filings 1, 11), so Plaintiff shall combine all of her allegations into one document entitled "Second Amended Complaint," which shall be considered the only operative complaint in this case after its filing. Plaintiff's "Second Amended Complaint" shall be filed no later than April 10, 2017. Should Plaintiff fail to do so, this action will be dismissed without further notice. The Clerk of Court is directed to set a case management deadline using the following text: April 11, 2017: check for Second Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court shall add to this case defendants Dianna Mastny and Lori Strong, who Plaintiff identifies in the body of her Complaint as employees of the Norfolk Regional Center where Plaintiff is civilly committed. (Filing 1 at CM/ECF p. 2.) The documents appearing at Filing 14, which were filed by Plaintiff and were apparently intended to be a supplement to her complaints, are stricken because they were filed without the court's permission and not in compliance with NECivR 15.1. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
March 14, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Supplemental Complaint (Filing 16) is stricken because it was filed without the court's permission and not in compliance with NECivR 15.1. As previously directed in the court's March 9, 2017, order (Filing 15), Plaintiff shall combine all of her allegations into one document entitled "Second Amended Complaint," which shall be considered the only operative complaint in this case after its filing. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint shall contain complete factual allegations as to all named defendants regarding only the claims that have not been dismissed in the court's March 9, 2017, order (Filing 15). Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint shall be filed no later than April 10, 2017. Should Plaintiff fail to do so, this action will be dismissed without further notice. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
March 21, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Filing 18) is denied. Plaintiff is ordered to comply with the court's prior order (Filing 15) directing her to file a Second Amended Complaint which omits those claims that have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or due to immunity, and which combines all of her remaining allegations and requests for relief into one document by April 10, 2017. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order shall result in dismissal ofthis matter without further notice. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
April 10, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time (Filing 20) within which to file a Second Amended Complaint is granted, and such complaint shall be filed on or before May 10, 2017. Plaintiff is ordered to comply with the court's prior order (Filing 15) directing her to file a Second Amended Complaint which omits those claims that have been dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or due to immunity, and which combines all of her remaining allegations and requests for relief into one document by May 10, 2017. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order shall result in dismissal of this matter without further notice. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
May 5, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER - that the Memorandum and Addendum (Filing 23) filed by Plaintiff shall be docketed and considered as a Supplemental Second Amended Complaint and shall undergo initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A in due course, along with Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Filing 22). Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
June 2, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the clerk of the court shall add the following defendants to the caption of this case: Dr. Jean Lange, Dr. David Mitchell, Beverly Leushen, and Donna Crist. Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim may proceed against defendants Schumacher and Beltagui in their individual capacities; Plaintiff's substantive due process claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim may proceed againstdefendants Kroll, Hansen, Mastny, Strong, Lange, Mitchell, Leushen, and Crist in their individual capacities; Plaintiff's equal protection claim may proceed against all defendants in their individual capacities; Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services are dismissed, and the clerk of the court shall remove this defendant from the caption of this case on the court'selectronic docket sheet; Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 27) is denied without prejudice to reassertion; the clerk shall complete summons forms and USM-285 forms and forward to the U.S. Marshal for service without prepayment of fees from Plaintiff; The clerk of the court is directed to set the following pro se case management deadline: October 2, 2017Check for completion of service of process. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (ADB)
June 28, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - that Plaintiff's "Memorandum," construed as a motion (Filing No. 32), is denied without prejudice. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
December 12, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - that Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time (Filing No. 49) in which to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 43) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Plaintiff's request to obtain declarations from fellow residents at the Norfolk Regional Center is denied. Plaintiff's request for more time within which to respond to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 43) is granted, and Plaintiff shall file such response on or before December 26, 2017. No further extensions of time will be granted. Defendants may file a reply to Plaintiff's response within the time allowed under the Local Rules, after which Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 43) shall be deemed ripe for resolution. Plaintiff's request to remove the Norfolk Regional Center's "no contact" order between Plaintiff and Jonathan Messing is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
February 14, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate as a pending motion Plaintiff's "Objection" (Filing No. 51) to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 43) and re-docket it as a Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate as a pending motion Plaintiff's "Objection" (Filing No. 56) to Defendants' Motion to Strike (Filing No. 54) and re-docket it as a Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
March 1, 2018
PDF | More
ts shall contact the undersigned magistrate judge's chambers to re-schedule the pretrial conference. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)ORDER - that on the court's own motion, the pretrial conference is continued pending further order of the court. If this case is not fully resolved by summary judgment, within ten (10) days after the summary judgment ruling, counsel for Defendan
May 8, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 43) is granted. Defendants' Motion to Strike (Filing No. 54) is denied. A separate judgment will be entered. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
May 25, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals with a copy of this order. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)