Gueltzau v. Warehime et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MIKEL JAMES GUELTZAU,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DEREK WAREHIME, Property Manager and
Owner; and CATHY WAREHIME, Property
Manager and Owner,
Defendants.
8:24CV430
ORDER ON SCREENING OF
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY
PLAINTIFF WHILE HIS APPEAL WAS
PENDING
On November 4, 2025, the Court filed a Memorandum and Order on Plaintiff’s Response
to Order to Show Cause and Various Filings. Filing 76. In that Memorandum and Order, among
other things, the Court concluded that Plaintiff has failed to show cause why all his future
submissions should not be reviewed by the Court prior to filing. Filing 76 at 6. Consequently, the
Court ordered that all Plaintiff’s future filings must be submitted in paper form via mail to the
Clerk of Court; that the Court will authorize the filing only of submissions requesting proper action
by the Court; and that documents that the Court determines are improper will not be filed but will
be retained in a “correspondence” file. Filing 76 at 6.
On November 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (identified as “Emergency
Appeal Packet”), Filing 78, appealing the Court’s Memorandum and Order, Filing 76, and a prior
Order revoking Plaintiff’s CM/ECF filing privileges, Filing 70. On November 10, 2025, the Court
granted Plaintiff permission to appeal in forma pauperis. Filing 80. Plaintiff’s appeal otherwise
deprived this Court of jurisdiction over any filings by Plaintiff after November 10, 2025. However,
on December 3, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Ryan C. Carson granted Plaintiff’s prior
Filing 71 to the extent that it requested that Lincoln be designated as the place of trial. Filing 85.
8:24-cv-00430-BCB-RCC Doc # 90 Filed: 02/03/26 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
On December 4, 2025, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals filed a Judgment on Plaintiff’s
Appeal. Filing 86. That Judgment stated in its entirety, “The court has carefully reviewed the
original file of the United States District Court and orders that this appeal be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.” Filing 86 at 1. On January 12, 2026, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied
Plaintiff’s petition for rehearing by the panel. Filing 88. Mandate from the Eighth Circuit issued
on January 20, 2026. Filing 89. Thus, this District Court once again has jurisdiction to screen the
documents Plaintiff submitted to this Court after November 10, 2025. As set out below, the Court
either authorizes the filing of submissions requesting proper action by the Court—and in some
instances summarily denies the relief requested in those submissions—or determines that the
submissions are improper and will not be filed but will be retained in a “correspondence” file.
Filing 76 at 6. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. On November 12, 2025, Plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court a document
entitled “Motion for Judicial Notice and Request for Corrective Action Regarding
Misrepresentation of Lease Terms in State-Court Case CI 24-8159.” This submission does not
request proper action by the Court and will not be filed but will be retained in a “correspondence”
file. While the Court can take judicial notice of public filings in a state-court action, there is no
motion properly before the Court at this time that would warrant the Court taking judicial notice
of any evidence. The Court will consider proper motions, but the Court will not consider stray
submissions of evidence, nor will the Court make rulings on random assertions that an opposing
party’s submissions contain material misrepresentations. To the extent this submission seeks to
compel production of certain documents, there must first be a proper discovery request for such
documents. There has been no showing of a prior discovery request.
8:24-cv-00430-BCB-RCC Doc # 90 Filed: 02/03/26 Page 2 of 8 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
2. On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court a document
entitled “Reply to Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Request to Move Trial.” This submission
will not be filed because the issue of the place of trial is redundant and moot. Judge Carson’s
December 3, 2025, Order granted Plaintiff’s Filing 71 to the extent that it requested that Lincoln
be designated as the place of trial. Filing 85.
3. On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court a document
entitled “Plaintiff’s First Set of Federal Discovery Requests.” This submission shall be filed as a
discovery request with the title Plaintiff provided.
4. On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court a document
entitled “Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Lincoln Federal Courthouse and Request for
ADA Accommodations.” This submission will not be filed because the issue of the place of trial
is moot. Judge Carson’s December 3, 2025, Order granted Plaintiff’s Filing 71 to the extent that it
requested that Lincoln be designated as the place of trial. Filing 85. The document is also redundant
of Plaintiff’s prior accommodation requests on which the Court has already ruled.
5. On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court a document
entitled “United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Appearance of Counsel,”
purportedly entering his appearance on his own behalf on his appeal. This submission will not be
filed. Even assuming such an appearance was required, it should have been filed in the Eighth
Circuit, and the appeal is now completed in light of the Eighth Circuit’s Judgment, Filing 86, denial
of rehearing, Filing 88, and Mandate, Filing 89.
6. On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court a document
entitled “Affidavit of Mikel Gueltzau.” This submission will not be filed because it is not a proper
filing in this action where it does not request proper action by this Court. The Affidavit
8:24-cv-00430-BCB-RCC Doc # 90 Filed: 02/03/26 Page 3 of 8 - Page ID #
<pageID>

4
“respectfully request[s] that the Lincoln Housing Authority reconsider and reinstate my housing
eligibility.” Aff. of Gueltzau, ¶ 1. Thus, it is directed to the Lincon Housing Authority not this
Court.
7. On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court a document
entitled “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and for Sanctions.” This document
shall be filed because it is related to pretrial discovery matters properly before the Court. The Court
takes no position on the merits of the Motion, however. The Motion is referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Ryan C. Carson for disposition.
8. On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court a document
entitled “Motion for Sanctions Based on Exhibit T.” Exhibit T attached to the document appears
to be a typed transcription of a handwritten document from defendant Cathy Warehime to someone
named “Chassidy.” Plaintiff’s document asserts, “Exhibit T demonstrates defamatory conduct,
retaliation, interference with housing rights, and improper disclosure of confidential tenant
information by agents of Signature Renovations.” Consequently, Plaintiff seeks sanctions “for
misconduct and retaliation,” an order compelling production “of all communications made about
Plaintiff,” an “[o]rder directing Defendants to cease defamatory or unsupported statements,” and
monetary sanctions, purportedly based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11, 26, and 37. This
submission does not request proper action by the Court and will not be filed but will be retained
in a “correspondence” file. The Court will not consider stray submissions of evidence, nor will the
Court make rulings on random assertions that an opposing party’s submissions contain improper
statements. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 provides no basis for doing so as a sanction for
improper discovery. To the extent this submission seeks to compel production of certain
8:24-cv-00430-BCB-RCC Doc # 90 Filed: 02/03/26 Page 4 of 8 - Page ID #
<pageID>

5
documents, there must first be a proper discovery request for such documents, but there has been
none.
9. On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court a document
entitled “Motion to Admit Exhibit T and for Judicial Notice.” This submission does not request
proper action by the Court and will not be filed but will be retained in a “correspondence” file. The
Court does not make piecemeal rulings on the admissibility of evidence. Exhibit T may be offered
in support of a proper motion or at trial, and its admissibility will be determined at that time.
10. On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court a document entitled
“Motion to Strike and for Sanctions.” In this document, Plaintiff “moves the Court under Fed. R.
Civ. [P] 12(f) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 to strike portions of Defendants’ written statement and to
impose sanctions.” This submission shall be filed as a “Motion to Strike and for Sanctions.”
However, this Motion is summarily denied by this Order because the Motion is too vague for the
Court to determine what “written statement” by Defendants is at issue and whether or not any
sanctions would be appropriate.
11. On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff submitted to the Clerk of Court a document entitled
“Motion for Protective Order, Sanctions, and Notice of Correction Regarding Prior Misfiling.”
The document will not be filed as a “Notice of Correction of Prior Misfiling,” because the filing
to which it pertains, Exhibit T, has not been offered or admitted for any proper purpose , so the
correction is moot.
The document will be filed as a Motion for Protective Order and Request for Sanctions.
However, as such it is summarily denied by this Order. The Motion is not a request for a protective
order within the meaning of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 or 37. It instead seeks protection
from and sanctions for allegedly defamatory statements, interference with Plaintiff’s civil rights,
8:24-cv-00430-BCB-RCC Doc # 90 Filed: 02/03/26 Page 5 of 8 - Page ID #
<pageID>

6
retaliation, and improper disclosure of irrelevant personal information. Plaintiff brought this case
to the Housing Authority and in this Court, and Defendants’ only actions so far have been to litigate
the matters in both administrative and judicial proceedings. Such conduct is not sanctionable. In
the proper context of dispositive motions or trial, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to dispute any
allegations by Defendants. The Court will not prejudge the case prior to the completion of
discovery and dispositive motions or trial.
12. On December 11, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a “Motion Asserting Due Process
Violations by the Lincoln Housing Authority and Request for Corrective Relief.” The document
will be filed as a Motion Asserting Due Process Violations by the Lincoln Housing Authority and
Request for Corrective Relief. However, as such it is summarily denied by this Order. The Lincoln
Housing Authority is not a party to this litigation. Thus, the requested relief cannot be provided in
this case.
13. On December 11, 2025, Plaintiff also submitted a “Notice of Supplemental
Evidence and Request for Judicial Notice.” This filing states in part that it is submitted “to clarify
the timeline of events and to provide additional documentation supporting Plaintiff ’s claims of
retaliation, abuse of process, interference with housing benefits, and Defendants’ pattern of false
statements made to courts and governmental agencies. This Notice supplements, but does not
amend, the existing complaint.” This submission does not request proper action by the Court and
will not be filed but will be retained in a “correspondence” file. While the Court can take judicial
notice of certain matters, there is no motion properly before the Court at this time that would
warrant the Court taking judicial notice of any evidence. The Court will consider proper motions,
but the Court will not consider stray submissions of evidence, nor will the Court make rulings on
random assertions that attempt to clarify the record. To the extent this submission attempts to
8:24-cv-00430-BCB-RCC Doc # 90 Filed: 02/03/26 Page 6 of 8 - Page ID #
<pageID>

7
supplement rather than amend the Complaint, it is denied. The Court will not deem the submission
supplemental and instead requires Plaintiff to offer any proposed alterations of his pleadings in the
manner required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and applicable local rules.
14. On December 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed his “Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures.” This
document shall be filed because it is related to pretrial discovery matters properly before the Court.
15. On February 2, 2026, Plaintiff submitted three subpoenas to non-parties to produce
documents. The non-parties are identified as Realty Works Property Management, the Lincoln
Commission on Human Rights, and Nebraska AIDS Project. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45
allows a party to serve a subpoena for the production of documents and for testimony upon a non-
party, subject to various requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. It also provides that a party subpoenaed
may object to or move to quash such a subpoena. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d). Because such discovery
is authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the subpoenas shall be issued by the Clerk
of Court. The Court takes no position on whether any of the recipients have grounds to object to
or move to quash the subpoena issued to them. Any such objections or motions to quash can be
addressed in due course.
The Court has attempted to make clear to Plaintiff that this case will proceed according to
the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, the Court’s local rules, and the schedule set out in the Final
Progression Order, as those deadlines may subsequently be amended. Plaintiff’s numerous
frivolous submissions and attempts to pre-litigate issues or to litigate issues not properly within
the scope of this action have impeded rather than forwarded the purpose of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to provide for the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of the action. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 1. Thus,
8:24-cv-00430-BCB-RCC Doc # 90 Filed: 02/03/26 Page 7 of 8 - Page ID #
<pageID>

8
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will continue to require Plaintiff to submit all
future filings in paper form via mail to the Clerk of Court; the Court will authorize filing only of
submissions requesting proper action by the Court; and documents that the Court determines are
improper will not be filed but will be retained in a “correspondence” file.
Dated this 3rd day of February, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________
Brian C. Buescher
United States District Judge
8:24-cv-00430-BCB-RCC Doc # 90 Filed: 02/03/26 Page 8 of 8 - Page ID #
<pageID>