Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

VALENTINE v. BROWN, 8:16CV131 (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nebraska Number: infdco20161227a30 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LAURIE SMITH CAMP , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 32 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 34 in 8:16cv174, filed by pro se Plaintiff Veronica Valentine ("Valentine"). Valentine initiated her action in Case No. 8:16cv131 on March 25, 2016, naming as Defendants Chris Brown, eight unknown Omaha police officers, and the City of Omaha. She initiated her action in Case No. 8:16cv174 on April 19, 2016, naming as Defendants
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 32 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 34 in 8:16cv174, filed by pro se Plaintiff Veronica Valentine ("Valentine").

Valentine initiated her action in Case No. 8:16cv131 on March 25, 2016, naming as Defendants Chris Brown, eight unknown Omaha police officers, and the City of Omaha. She initiated her action in Case No. 8:16cv174 on April 19, 2016, naming as Defendants the City of Omaha, the Omaha Chief of Police, and unknown police officers. Liberally construed, both actions alleged a violation of Valentine's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in connection with a search conducted by Omaha police in July 2015.

The cases were consolidated on July 14, 2016; and Valentine filed an Amended Complaint on September 12, 2016, ECF No. 12 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 16 in 8:16cv174, which is now the operative pleading in both cases. The Amended Complaint names as Defendants Lisa Villwok ("Villwok") and Jennifer Hansen ("Hansen"), the officers who allegedly conducted the search giving rise to Valentine's actions. Counsel for Villwok and Hansen entered his appearance and filed an Answer on their behalf, ECF No. 24 in 8:16cv131, ECF No. 29 in 8:16cv174.

The parties' Rule 26 Report is due to the Court on January 30, 2017, and no progression order has been entered, nor has discovery commenced.

In Valentine's Motion for Summary Judgment, which also purports to include a motion for class certification, she appears to argue that judgment should be granted in her favor because on November 18, 2016, a judge of the Douglas County District Court granted a motion in limine and a motion to suppress in a criminal proceeding related to the search, finding that a statement made by Valentine following the search was inadmissible. The order of the District Court of Douglas County in the related criminal proceeding is not dispositive of the issues presented in this case, and the parties herein will be permitted to proceed with discovery.

IT IS ORDERED:

Plaintiff Veronica Valentine's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 32 in 8:16cv131, and ECF No. 34 in 8:16cv174, is denied without prejudice to reassertion at an appropriate time following the issuance of the progression order.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer