Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Frazier v. The City of Omaha Police Dept

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

April 23, 2019




         This matter is before the court on its own motion. On February 13, 2019, after an extensive initial review of the Plaintiff's 169-page Complaint[1], the court dismissed “[a]ll Defendants” against which Plaintiff had asserted claims and ordered Plaintiff to amend his Complaint as follows:

Plaintiff is granted leave to file an Amended Complaint against named Omaha police officers, in their individual capacities, who allegedly arrested Plaintiff without a warrant and unreasonably seized items from his home on January 16 and February 3, 2017, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint shall assert only these claims. Plaintiff shall not assert claims against any of the Defendants discussed above who have already been dismissed from this action. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint shall contain specific, detailed, and truthful factual allegations establishing that the named Defendants personally violated the Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights and how they did so. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint shall supersede his original Complaint and shall not contain attachments.

         (Filing No. 6 at CM/ECF pp. 15-16.) Plaintiff was warned that “[f]ailure to file an Amended Complaint within the time specified by the court will result in the court dismissing this case without further notice to Plaintiff.” (Filing No. 6 at CM/ECF p. 16.)

         Instead of filing an amended complaint as directed, Plaintiff has filed a “Response” that: (1) declares his allegiance to “The Laws of the Land and the By Laws of the Moorish American Government”; (2) demands access to “all material evidence used to support the demands requested” in the court's order because without such evidence, the court's order “is merely speculation”; (3) accuses the court of attempting “to assassinate the character of the Plaintiff” when the court characterized Court Judge ordered that Plaintiff's marital residence be sold as part of divorce proceedings that occurred while Plaintiff was imprisoned; and Plaintiff's minor child was removed from his custody while he was detained in the OCC. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 5-15.) as “[a]t best . . . not ‘plausible'” and “at worst . . . ‘outlandish in nature and described in fantastic or delusional terms'” Plaintiff's claim that Defendants “took part in a two[-]year orchestrated Hate Crime against me. . . . in a twisted revenge and extortion plot targeting me and using me as the fall guy in the extortion scam that all derived behind trying to silence the sex secrets of a dentist and his mistress” and “made a conscious and personal effort to play a major role in executing a plan to drag me off to prison . . . for the benefit of helping Dentist Peter C. Jessen keep me from advertising his sexual fetish[] with Jennifer Simms. . . . [T]he plot [was] to put me behind bars to silence me and help themselves to my assets.”[2]; (4) asks what Defendants have been dismissed; (5) questions whether the court's order to omit attachments from his amended complaint is “an unsophisticated and malicious attempt to sabotage case and its evidence”; (6) states that “summary dismissal is not appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 without a discovery of evidence”; (7) notes that “[n]o pre-trial was set allowing each party . . . to obtain evidence”; and (8) accuses the court of issuing a “gag order” by restricting access to attachments Plaintiff filed with his Complaint because they contain unredacted social security numbers and birth dates in violation of Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2(a). (Filing No. 7.)

         I shall dismiss Plaintiff's case because Plaintiff failed to follow the court's order to file an amended complaint consistent with the court's clear directions in its previous Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 6). See Tyler v. City of Omaha, 780 F.Supp. 1266, 1275 (D. Neb. 1991), remanded without opinion, 953 F.2d 648 (8th Cir. 1991) (table) (recommending dismissal of pro se amended complaint that did not remedy failings noted in order on initial review of original complaint; dismissal “is warranted as plaintiff has received full notice of the insufficiency of []his claims and received a meaningful opportunity to respond through the invitation to file an amended complaint in order to remedy the noted failings, ” but failed to do so); Nebraska General Rule 1.3(g) (“Unless stated otherwise, parties who proceed pro se are bound by and must comply with all local and federal procedural rules.”); 9 Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2369 (3d ed. 2019) (“pro se plaintiffs are fully responsible for compliance with court orders, rules, and schedules”).[3]

         Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute this matter diligently and for failure to comply with this court's orders; and
2. Judgment shall be entered by separate document.



[1]As stated in the court's initial review, Plaintiff's lawsuit can be described as follows:

Plaintiff sues city and county entities, officials, and judges; his ex-wife; his ex-wife's employer/alleged lover; and his own divorce attorney for “executing a plan to drag [him] off to prison” to prevent Plaintiff from “advertising [his ex-wife's lover's] sexual fetish[] with [Plaintiff's ex-wife]” and to “help themselves to [his] assets.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 22.)

As part of this “twisted revenge and extortion plot” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 3), Plaintiff alleges that false police reports were issued about him, leading to two arrests, one of which was without a warrant; during his arrests, Omaha police officers took personal items out of his home without a search warrant; a Douglas County Attorney falsely accused Plaintiff of depriving his son of “food, shelter, clothing etc. and engaging in prostitution and porn”; Plaintiff was falsely charged with terroristic threats, burglary, arson, stalking, and child abuse, all of which were ultimately dismissed; he was ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.