Kern S. Saleena v. Douglas County District Court, Nebraska Court of Appeals, and Judicial Officers and Clerks, in their official capacities

• Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
• Decided: December 10, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-00449
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

KERN S. SALEENA, Plaintiff, 8:25CV449 vs. DOUGLAS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, FINDINGS AND NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, and RECOMMENDATION JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND CLERKS, in their official capacities; Defendants.

This matter comes before the court on review of the docket. Plaintiff filed a Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction on July 14, 2025. (Filing No. 1, Filing No. 3). Summons were issued to Plaintiff as to Defendants Douglas County District Court and Nebraska Court of Appeals on August 15, 2025. (Filing No. 5). No summons was ever requested or issued as to Defendant “Judicial Officers and Clerks in their official capacities.” On October 20, 2025, the court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause on or before November 3, 2025 why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) for want of prosecution, as no defendants had yet been served. (Filing No. 6). The court warned that failure to comply with its order may result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint without further notice. Plaintiff responded to the show cause order on November 3, 2025. (Filing No. 7). Plaintiff stated that he was required to travel abroad unexpectedly for a family medical emergency and was unable to complete service as required under Rule 4(m), but would take immediate steps to complete service. Upon review of Plaintiff’s response, the court found good cause and extended Plaintiff’s deadline to serve the defendants to December 3, 2025. (Filing No. 8). To date, Plaintiffs have not filed a return of service indicating service on any defendant and none of the defendants have voluntarily appeared. This matter has been pending for nearly five months. Plaintiff was previously warned of the consequences if service was not timely made and was given an additional month to complete service and still has not done so. Even though Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, Plaintiff must still comply with local rules, court orders, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996) (“In general, pro se representation does not excuse a party from complying with a court's orders and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); Bennett v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 295 F.3d 805, 808 (8th Cir. 2002) (A litigant's “pro se status d[oes] not entitle him to disregard the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[.]”). Given the additional opportunity Plaintiff was given to complete service, the undersigned now recommends the court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED to the Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, without prejudice, in its entirety for want of prosecution without further notice. The parties are notified that failing to file an objection to this recommendation as provided in the local rules of this court may be held to be a waiver of any right to appeal the court’s adoption of the recommendation. Dated this 10th day of December, 2025.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Ryan C. Carson United States Magistrate Judge