United States District Court, D. Nebraska
LYLE E. STROM, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on ten motions which the Court has reviewed and now finds as follows.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The plaintiff in this matter is Julie Carper, a citizen of Colorado, erstwhile resident of Nebraska, and ex-wife of the defendant. The plaintiff is appearing pro se. Her motions represent the lion's share of the pending motions in this matter.
Plaintiff filed her complaint on or about September 25, 2014 (Filing No. 1). She filed a notice of consent of civil action before Magistrate Judge Thalken, though she was the sole signatory, thereby preserving this Court's jurisdiction over the matter. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on or about September 29, 2014 (Filing No. 7).
Plaintiff has filed a motion for fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. According to the motion, the defendant refused service by certified mail ("as an intentional delay by the Defendant as an attorney") and therefore, plaintiff spent $51.75 to perfect in-hand service on the defendant (Filing No. 11, at 1). Attached to this motion are documents purporting to show the basis of the fees. Id. at 2-4.
In lieu of an answer, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12 (b)(6) (Filing No. 13, at 1). Defendant filed an accompanying brief in support of this motion (Filing No. 14). These documents were filed on December 2, 2014.
On December 5, 2014, the plaintiff filed four motions. First, in response to the defendant's motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a motion (Filing No. 15) "in support of brief in opposition of defendants [sic] motion to dismiss." Filing No. 15, at 1. Plaintiff filed an accompanying brief (Filing No. 16) in support of this motion. Both of these documents were filed on December 5, 2014, some three days after the defendant's filings. The Court, for the purpose of liberally construing filings of pro se litigants, will deny this motion (Filing No. 15) as moot. Instead, the Court will consider the motion's accompanying brief (Filing No. 16) as a brief in opposition of defendant's motion to dismiss (Filing No. 13).
Second, the plaintiff submitted a motion (Filing No. 17) seeking an expedited hearing. This motion will be denied.
Third, the plaintiff filed a motion (Filing No. 18) for an order to show cause. After review of the underlying request that the Court enter a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against the defendant to refrain from abiding by a State court order, the Court will deny that motion.
Fourth, the plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify the defendant's attorney on the bases that his attorney is not competent, does not understand domestic violence, and is a friend of the defendant, among other reasons (Filing No. 19, at 1-4). The Court will deny this motion.
On December 9, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion "to strike defendants [sic] affirmative defenses." Filing No. 20, at 1.
On December 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend and supplement her complaint in order to join the defendant's lawyer as a co-conspirator under the "RICO Act." Filing No. 22, at 1.
On December 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed two more motions. First, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment (Filing No. 24). Second, plaintiff filed a ...