Meier v. Long

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nebraska
DecidedJanuary 16, 2025
Docket8:24-cv-00389
StatusUnknown

This text of Meier v. Long (Meier v. Long) 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
Meier v. Long, (D. Neb. 2025).

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; BECKY, Ms., Account/Funds Handler, Individual and Official capacity; UNKNOWN, cpl, Shield Number 97092, Individual and Official capacity; UNKNOWN, sgt, Individual and Official capacity; UNKNOWN, cpl, Shield Number 97051, Individual and Official capacity; UNKNOWN SHERIFF, Sheriff, Individual and Official capacity; BRANDON, Head United States Marshal, Individual and Official capacity; JON, Shield Number 52, Individual and Official capacity; UNKNOWN, Nurse, Individual and Official capacity; UNKNOWN, Doctor, Individual and Official capacity; and UNKNOWN, Capt, Individual and Official capacity;

Defendants.

Before the Court are a motion seeking to extend time to file an amended complaint, Filing No. 57, and a motion seeking free copies of several documents filed with this Court, Filing No. 58, filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Meier (“Plaintiff”). On December 23, 2024, this Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint no later than January 22, 2025. Filing No. 55. Plaintiff now seeks an extension of the January 22 deadline to file an amended complaint by 60 days to allow him to obtain copies of the original complaint at Filing No. 5, the supplement to that complaint at Filing No. 3, and two addendums he filed into this case at Filing No. 23 and Filing No. 32, and all attached exhibits, which he contends he needs to prepare his amended complaint. Filing No. 57 at 1. As cause, Plaintiff explains that he is no longer in possession of the original complaint and his addendums due to having been transferred between institutions several times over the last two months and not being allowed to bring his belongings with him including his legal papers. Id. As such, Plaintiff submits, the only documents from this

case that he currently has in his possession are the latest updates from this case which were sent to his current address. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks a 60-day extension to allow him to obtain the copies requested and then draft his amended complaint. Id. Finally, Plaintiff argues that he has reached out to the Clerk’s Office to obtain the copies he needs but that he has been informed that he must pay for them even though he is proceeding in forma pauperis in this matter. Filing No. 58 at 1, 3–4, 6. Both motions shall be granted. However, Plaintiff is informed that the fact that Plaintiff was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis does not entitle him to receive copies of documents without payment. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see also Haymes v. Smith, 73 F.R.D.

572, 574 (W.D.N.Y. 1976) (“The generally recognized rule is that a court may not authorize the commitment of federal funds to underwrite the necessary expenditures of an indigent civil litigant’s action.”) (citing Tyler v. Lark, 472 F.2d 1077, 1078 (8th Cir. 1973)). While the Court shall grant Plaintiff’s present motion for copies, no further motions shall be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Instead, if Plaintiff requires additional copies of court documents, he should contact the Clerk’s Office to determine the proper method of requesting and paying for copies. See NEGenR 1.2(d) (“Before providing a service, the clerk requires prepayment of all collectible fees prescribed by statute or the Judicial Conference of the United States.”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1914 & Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees (fee “[flor reproducing any record and providing a copy in paper form, $.50 per page’). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. The Motion for Copies, Filing No. 58, is granted. 2. The Clerk’s Office is instructed to provide Plaintiff with copies of Filing No. 3, Filing No. 5, Filing No. 23 and Filing No. 32 and all attached exhibits. 3. Plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline to file his amended complaint, Filing No. 57, is granted. Plaintiff shall have until March 17, 2025, to file his amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to file his amended complaint or seek additional time to do so by the March 17, 2025, deadline, this matter will be dismissed without further notice. 4. The Clerk's Office is directed to set the following pro se case management deadline: March 17, 2025: check for amended complaint.

Dated this 16th day of January, 2025.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon Senior United States District Judge

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

Related

Haymes v. Smith
73 F.R.D. 572 (W.D. New York, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Meier v. Long, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meier-v-long-ned-2025.