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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-377 - Dortch v. City of Omaha Police Department et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-377 - Dortch v. City of Omaha Police Department et al
October 12, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is 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 pro se party) (LAC)
October 30, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by December 1, 2017, that states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Failure to file an amended complaint within the time specified by the court will result in the court dismissing this case without further notice to Plaintiff. ***( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 12/1/2017: check for amended complaint.) Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(JAB)
December 12, 2017
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the clerk of the court shall terminate the following Defendants as parties in this case because Plaintiff has not named them as Defendants in his Amended Complaint (Filing No. 7): City of Omaha Police Department, Douglas County Sheriff, Bivens, and Unknown John Doe Police Officers. The clerk of the court shall add to the case caption the Defendants named in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Filing No. 7): City of Omaha; Officer Shada, J #1358; Officer Turner, J #1961; and Officer Worley,L #1478, all in their individual and official capacities. Defendants City of Omaha and Officers Shada, Turner, and Worley in their official capacities are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's equal-protection claim against Defendant Officers Shada, Turner, and Worley in their individual capacities is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The following 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims may proceed to service of process as against Defendant Officers Shada, Turner, and Worley in their individual capacities: (a) Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure claim and (b) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment pre-deprivation procedural-due-process claim. The clerk of the court is directed to obtain the last-known address for Defendant City of Omaha Police Officers J. Shada #1358, J. Turner #1961, and L. Worley #1478 from the United States Marshals Service for service of process on these Defendants in their individual capacities. Once such addresses are obtained, the clerk of the court is directed to complete a summons form and a USM-285 form for such Defendants using the addresses provided by the Marshals Service and forward them together with a copy of the Complaint (Filing 1), the Amended Complaint (Filing 7), this court's previous Memorandum and Order on initial review (Filing 6), and a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the Marshals Service for service of process on DefendantCity of Omaha Police Officers J. Shada #1358, J. Turner #1961, and L. Worley #1478in their individual capacities. The Marshals Service shall serve Defendant City of Omaha Police Officers J. Shada #1358, J. Turner #1961, and L. Worley #1478 in their individual capacities using any of the following methods: personal, residence, certified mail, or designated delivery service. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) (Westlaw 2017); Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-508.01 (Westlaw 2017). The United States Marshal shall serve all process in this case without prepayment of fees from Plaintiff. The clerk of the court is directed to file under seal any document containing the last-known personal addresses for the Defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of the complaint on a defendant within 120 days of filing the complaint. However, Plaintiff is granted, on the court's own motion, an extension of time until 120 days from the date of this order to complete service of process. The clerk of the court is directed to set the following pro se case management deadline: April 12, 2018: service of process to be completed. Because this non-prisoner case is proceeding to service of process, and at the direction of the court, this case is removed from the pro se docket. The clerk's office shall randomly assign new judges to this case and request a reassignment order from the Chief Judge. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(LAC)
January 29, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER that the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery (Filing No. 12) and Plaintiff's Motion (Filing No. 13) are denied, without prejudice to re-filing after the defendants have been served, filed a responsive pleading, and this court enters a progression order permitting discovery to commence. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)
March 30, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Motions, ECF Nos. 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 31, filed by Plaintiff Joshua Dortch, are denied. The Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 27, filed by Defendants Officer Shada, Officer Turner, and Officer Worley, is denied. The Defendants must file an answer to the Amended Complaint on or before April 12, 2018. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)