Jonathan Meier v. Long, cpl, Individual and Official capacity; et. al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
• Decided: January 21, 2026
• Docket: 8:24-cv-00389
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

JONATHAN MEIER,

Plaintiff, 8:24CV389

vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LONG, cpl, Individual and Official capacity; et. al.;

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on a document filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Meier (“Plaintiff”) titled “motion: to take notice of attempts to resolve and get documents” (the “Motion”), which this Court construes as a discovery motion. Filing No. 70. The Motion shall be denied as premature. As explained previously by this Court, “[b]ecause the Initial Review has not yet been performed the Discovery Motion shall be denied without prejudice as any motion seeking discovery is premature until the Court has determined upon initial review that the Complaint may proceed to service of process.” Filing No. 67 at 3 (citing Jackson v. Herrington, 393 F. App'x 348, 353 (6th Cir. 2010) (“Rule 4 requires plaintiffs to serve each defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint. But district courts cannot issue summonses in in forma pauperis prisoner cases until after screening the complaint for frivolousness and other defects under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A(b).”) (citation omitted)). To reiterate, Plaintiff’s lengthy amended complaint and supplement, see Filing Nos. 61 and 62, has not yet proceeded past initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A(b), formal discovery has not yet begun and shall not take place until after the Initial Review is performed, and (if this Court determines this matter may proceed to service of process), the defendants must still be served and a progression order must be entered before any discovery may take place. See /d. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Motion, Filing No. 70, shall be denied without prejudice as premature. Plaintiff is once again advised that the next step in his case will be for the Court to conduct an initial review of the claims set forth in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Supplement to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). The Court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of business.

Dated this 21st day of January, 2026. BY THE COURT: F. Bataillon Senior United States District Court