Andrews v. State of Nebraska et al
Plaintiff: Michael Andrews
Defendant: State of Nebraska, City of Omaha Police Department, Unknown Diehm and Unknown Von Behren
Case Number: 8:2008cv00312
Filed: July 17, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: Civil Rights: Other Office
County: Douglas
Presiding Judge: Richard G. Kopf
Presiding Judge: Pro Se Docket
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:1331 Fed. Question

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 1, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 54 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Andrews' Motions for Default (filing nos. 49 , 50 and 53 ) are denied. Von Behren's Motion for Summary Judgment (filing no. 37 ) is granted and Andrews' claims are dismissed without prejudice. All other pe nding motions are denied. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. The final pretrial conference, scheduled for September 18, 2009, at 11:00 a.m., is cancelled. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (GJG) Modified on 9/1/2009 to remove language regarding sending a copy to pro se filer as all parties receive notice electronically (GJG).
February 24, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 18 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal (filing no. 14 ) construed as a Motion for Interlocutory Appeal, is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (filing no. 16 ) is denied as moot. A separate order will be entered progressing this matter. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG, )
December 9, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 10 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER- Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Diehm and Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Von Behren may p roceed and service is now warranted as to that claim only. Plaintiff must complete and return the summons form which the Clerk of the court will provide. The Clerk of the court shall send ONE (1) summons form and ONE (1) USM-285 form to Plaintiff tog ether with a copy of this Memorandum and Order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case with the following text: April 8, 2009: Check for completion of service of summons. The parties are bound by th e Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by the Local Rules of this court. Plaintiff shall keep the court informed of his current address at all times while this case is pending. Failure to do so may result in dismissal.***Pro Se Case Management Deadlines: ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 4/8/2009.) Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party along with ONE summons and ONE 285 form)(GJG, )
September 11, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 6 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER-Plaintiff shall have until October 14, 2008 to amend his Complaint and clearly state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendants, in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Diehm and Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment safety claims will be dismissed without further notice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In the event that Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall restate the allegations of the current Complaint (filing no. 1 ), and any new allegations. Failure to consolidate all claims into one document may result in the abandonment of claims. No summons will be issued u ntil after Plaintiff has had an opportunity to amend his Complaint in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff shall keep the court informed of his current address at all times while this case is pending. Failure to do so may result in dismissal without further notice. Pro Se Case Management Deadline: Check for amended complaint on October 14, 2008. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(LKL)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Nebraska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Andrews v. State of Nebraska et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Andrews
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: State of Nebraska
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: City of Omaha Police Department
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Unknown Diehm
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Unknown Von Behren
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?