Kevin L. Ballard v. Nebraska Department of Corrections, et. al

D. Nebraska

Kevin L. Ballard v. Nebraska Department of Corrections, et. al

DecidedJanuary 22, 2026

Docket8:25-cv-00518

StatusUnknown

This text of Kevin L. Ballard v. Nebraska Department of Corrections, et. al (Kevin L. Ballard v. Nebraska Department of Corrections, et. al) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kevin L. Ballard v. Nebraska Department of Corrections, et. al, (D. Neb. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

KEVIN L. BALLARD,

Plaintiff, 8:25CV518

vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al;

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on what appears to be a motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Kevin L. Ballard (“Plaintiff”). Filing No. 15. In his Motion Plaintiff seeks relief from the Memorandum and Order and corresponding Amended Judgment dismissing this case without Prejudice. See Filing Nos. 12 & 14. For the reasons that follow, the Motion shall be denied. As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not indicated which provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure he relies upon in making the Motion. See Filing No. 15. As such, the Motion may be treated either as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment or as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 168 (8th Cir. 1988). However, there is no need to further address the Motion under either Rule as Plaintiff mistakenly believes the matter was dismissed due to his failure to submit the initial partial filing fee. See Filing No. 15 at 1. The initial partial filing fee of $0.88 was received by this Court on November 17, 2025 (text entry), therefore payment of the fee was not an issue when Plaintiff’s case was dismissed. Instead, Plaintiff’s case was dismissed due to his claims being barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Filing No. 12 at 1. As such, Plaintiff's argument addressing the initial partial filing fee payment is misguided and ultimately inapplicable when considering the basis for the dismissal of his case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: The Motion, Filing No. 15, is denied without prejudice. The case shall remain closed.

Dated this 22nd day of January, 2026. BY THE VS M. Gerrard enior United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

KEVIN L. BALLARD,

Plaintiff, 8:25CV518

vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et. al;

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on what appears to be a motion for reconsideration (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Kevin L. Ballard (“Plaintiff”). Filing No. 15. In his Motion Plaintiff seeks relief from the Memorandum and Order and corresponding Amended Judgment dismissing this case without Prejudice. See Filing Nos. 12 & 14. For the reasons that follow, the Motion shall be denied. As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not indicated which provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure he relies upon in making the Motion. See Filing No. 15. As such, the Motion may be treated either as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment or as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 168 (8th Cir. 1988). However, there is no need to further address the Motion under either Rule as Plaintiff mistakenly believes the matter was dismissed due to his failure to submit the initial partial filing fee. See Filing No. 15 at 1. The initial partial filing fee of $0.88 was received by this Court on November 17, 2025 (text entry), therefore payment of the fee was not an issue when Plaintiff’s case was dismissed. Instead, Plaintiff’s case was dismissed due to his claims being barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Filing No. 12 at 1. As such, Plaintiff's argument addressing the initial partial filing fee payment is misguided and ultimately inapplicable when considering the basis for the dismissal of his case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: The Motion, Filing No. 15, is denied without prejudice. The case shall remain closed.

Dated this 22nd day of January, 2026. BY THE VS M. Gerrard enior United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kevin L. Ballard v. Nebraska Department of Corrections, et. al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kevin-l-ballard-v-nebraska-department-of-corrections-et-al-ned-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack