United States District Court, D. Nebraska
NEBRASKA DATA CENTERS, LLC, and AMERICAN NEBRASKA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiffs,
LEO KHAYET, and TIMBER VENTURES, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge
above-captioned action was filed on October 5, 2017.
(Filing No. 1). Defendant Khayet was served on
October 20, 2017, and was initially represented by counsel.
His counsel moved to withdraw on December 19, 2017. The
motion to withdraw was addressed and granted at a hearing
held before Judge Smith Camp on December 21, 2017. During
that hearing, Judge Smith Camp advised Defendant Khayet as
I will let you know that proceeding pro se in a case such as
this is not likely in your best interest.
I am aware that you have been contacting court staff asking
for advice, asking for guidance; and we really can't give
you legal advice. That's not possible.
So if you believe that you will be receiving advice from the
court staff, either chambers staff or the clerk's office,
you are not. You are going to be on your own.
(Filing No. 60, at CM/ECF p. 5, lines 17-25).
Defendant Khayet has appeared pro se since that time.
there are now 178 filings in this case, it has not progressed
past the pleading stage. Plaintiff's second amended
complaint, (Filing No. 166), filed on May 25, 2018,
adds Timber Ventures LLC as a defendant. Timber Ventures was
served on May 29, 2018. Defendant Khayet's answer to the
second amended complaint is now due on June 15, 2018.
Defendant Timber Ventures must file its answer on or before
June 19, 2018. (Filing No. 178).
2, 2018, I entered an order prohibiting Defendant Khayet from
initiating any direct contact with my chambers, whether by
email, telephone, or in person. (Filing No. 145).
The following day, Defendant Khayet filed a notice praising
members of the clerk's office for their exceedingly
professional assistance in navigating the procedural issues
related to pleadings, (Filing No. 146). But the
notice further commented that “on May 3, 2018, a staff
member from the Clerk's Office advised Defendant Mr.
Khayet (3) three separate times that the ‘Clerk Office
staff were not attorneys and cannot give legal
advice.'” (Filing No. 146, at CM/ECF p.
2). Defendant Khayet stated he “has
never asked for legal advice from
the Clerk's Office or Court staff.” (Filing No.
146, at CM/ECF p. 2). (emphasis in original).
than three weeks later, Defendant Khayet filed a motion
requesting the court to enter an order requiring the
clerk's office to direct all his calls to a supervisor
because he had “received (3) three conflicting answers
by (3) three separate personnel in response to his
‘identical' procedural inquiry.” (Filing
No. 160). Although the court denied this motion, (Filing
No. 161), the Chief Deputy Clerk responded to Defendant
Khayet's concerns by letter. (Filing No. 179, at
CM/ECF p. 1).
June 12, 2018 at 6:02 a.m. until June 14, 2018 at 6:22 a.m.,
Defendant Khayet sent 19 emails to the Chief Deputy Clerk.
Defendant Khayet expresses concern that the
“'[informal] policies governing general
communication between the clerk's office and chambers
staff' have impeded and continue to interfere with the
orderly progression of the District of Nebraska case
8:17-CV-00369.” (Filing No. 179, at CM/ECF p.
7). His email sent late yesterday afternoon states he is
reviewing “appropriate and necessary legal steps that
may need to be taken” as a result of the Chief Deputy
Clerk's miscommunications and her inconsistent responses
to Defendant Khayet's questions. (Filing No. 179, at
CM/ECF p. 58). At 6:22 a.m. today, Defendant Khayet
requested that all his communications with the clerk's
office be handled by only the Clerk of Court,
“reserve[ing] the legal right to brief the above
matters to the Honorable United States District Judge Carlos
Murguia and the Honorable United States Magistrate Judge
Gerald L. Rushfelt in their capacity overseeing the
disposition and pre-trial matters in the District of Kansas
case 2:17-CV-02624.” (Filing No. 179, at CM/ECF p.
court has inherent authority to enter and enforce orders
which eliminate or limit disruption of clerk's office
functions, thereby providing for the efficient disposition of
all cases before the court. Those orders can include barring
or limiting a party's contact with the clerk's
office. See Burns v. Minnesota, 61 F.3d 908, 1995 WL
431292 (8th Cir. 1995) (affirming "an order of the
district court requiring [pro se litigant] to stop
telephoning the court's chambers and to communicate with
the court and court personnel only in writing" because
such an "order relates to [the court's] inherent
power to control its docket and the progression of cases
before it"). See also, Bethel v. Baldwin
Cty. Bd. of Educ., 371 Fed.Appx. 57, 62 (11th Cir.
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant shall show cause why an order should not be issued
prohibiting him from physically accessing the Clerk's
Office of the United States District Court for the District
of Nebraska, and from contacting that clerk's office
telephonically, by email, or by any means other than
electronic docket filings for judicial ruling. Any documents
supporting Defendant Khayet's show cause filing shall be
electronically docketed in this case on or before 5:00 p.m.
on June 18, 2018.
telephonic hearing will be held before the undersigned
magistrate judge on June 19, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. regarding the
issue of whether Defendant Khayet will be prohibited from
further contact with the clerk's office as set forth in
paragraph 1 of this order, and a. Defendant Khayet shall