Allen v. Nebraska Dept. of Driver Licsence Examiner Office et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WANDA M. ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NEBRASKA DEPT. OF DRIVER
LICSENCE EXAMINER OFFICE, and
STATE OF NEBRASKA, on behalf of
Department of Licesencing Examiner
Office;
Defendants.
8:25CV629
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for an exception
for her faxed filings, Filing No. 6; motion for electronic filing access; Filing
No. 9; motion to seal, Filing No. 8; and motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”), Filing No. 2. Each motion will be addressed in turn.
I. FAXED FILINGS
On October 23, 2025, Plaintiff faxed a Complaint Filing No. 1, and an
unsigned IFP motion, Filing No. 2, which the Court accepted for filing and
docketed in this case. Later on October 23, 2025, Plaintiff also faxed a motion
asking the Court to allow her “the one-time opportunity [to] initiat[e] this
case via fax” (the “Motion for Fax Exception”). Filing No. 6.
Because the Court has accepted Plaintiff’s faxed Complaint and other
initial filings, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Fax Exception only
with respect to the faxed pleadings already filed in this case as of the date of
this order (i.e., the Complaint, motions, and correspondence specifically
referenced in this order, see Filing Nos. 1–2, 6–9). However, Plaintiff is
advised that, although the Court accepted her Complaint and other initial
8:25-cv-00629-JMG-PRSE Doc # 10 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 1 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
motions she submitted by fax, pursuant to the Court’s local rules “[a]
document faxed or e-mailed to the clerk or assigned judge is not considered
filed without a court order.” NECivR 5.1(d). As such, Plaintiff is hereby
notified that the Court will not accept any further faxed documents
she submits for filing in this case or otherwise and the Court will
take no action on any documents Plaintiff faxes to the Court.1 All
future filings Plaintiff makes into this case must be made via hand delivery,
United States postal mail, or by registering for electronic case filing
(“CM/ECF”) access, which is addressed further below.
II. MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC FILING ACCESS
Plaintiff asks the Court to allow her PACER access and CM/ECF filing
access. Filing No. 9. Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with the Court’s local
rules. To obtain electronic filing access, Plaintiff should follow the
instructions in NEGenR 1.3(b) which provides:
(b) Registration for CM/ECF.
(1) District Court Registration.
Before electronically filing a document with the court,
an attorney or a pro se party (i.e., one not represented
by an attorney) to a pending civil case must register
for electronic filing with PACER at the following web
address: https://www.pacer.gov/. See NECivR 5.1;
NECrimR 49.1. Electronic filing registration
constitutes a party's consent to electronic service and
waiver of the right to service by personal service or
first class mail. Once registration is complete, a login
and password are issued by PACER and serve as part
of the user’s electronic signature on documents filed
on the System. See NECivR 11.1; NECrimR 49.2.
1 This includes any of the multiple faxes Plaintiff submitted later on October 27, 2025, after the last-
docketed motion at Filing No. 9. Those faxes will be separately returned to Plaintiff.
8:25-cv-00629-JMG-PRSE Doc # 10 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 2 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
Plaintiff, thus, must register for electronic filing access through
PACER. As Plaintiff has not complied with NEGenR 1.3(b), Plaintiff’s motion
for electronic filing access, Filing No. 9, is denied without prejudice to
Plaintiff seeking electronic filing access through the appropriate process.
III. MOTION TO SEAL
Plaintiff also requests the Court “allow Plaintiff the rights to file and
case performance Under SEAL” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
5.2(d) because “Plaintiff is challenged in this case being of greater interest to
other in preventing any legal actions against the defendants” and “it would
be in the best interest in all Plaintiffs in this case Under Seal services and
performance as case move forward.” Filing No. 8 (as in original).
Rule 5.2(d) provides that “[t]he court may order that a filing be made
under seal without redaction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d). However, the Court
cannot discern any need to seal these proceedings to protect any sensitive or
personal identifying information nor has Plaintiff demonstrated any such
need. Plaintiff’s motion to seal is, therefore, denied.
IV. IFP MOTION
As indicated above, Plaintiff filed an unsigned IFP motion, Filing No. 2,
on October 23, 2025, and the Clerk of Court advised Plaintiff that her IFP
motion was unsigned and therefore deficient. The Clerk of Court directed
Plaintiff to “correct the deficiency” (i.e., file a signed IFP motion) within 14
days, or the pleading “may be stricken from the record of this case.” Filing
No. 5 (text order). On October 27, 2025, Plaintiff faxed correspondence to the
Court and included four Form Pro Se 1 Complaint signature pages,
apparently in response to the text notice of signature deficiency. Filing No. 7.
Plaintiff is advised that the complaint signature pages she submitted
do not correct the signature deficiency in her unsigned IFP motion. To correct
the IFP motion signature deficiency, Plaintiff must submit a copy of her IFP
8:25-cv-00629-JMG-PRSE Doc # 10 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 3 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

4
motion that includes her signature in the space provided on page 2 of the
form. Plaintiff has until November 6, 2025, to submit a signed IFP motion
in compliance with the Clerk of the Court’s directions.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Fax Exception, Filing No. 6, is granted only
to the extent that the Court has accepted the faxed filings already on file with
the Court as of this date. The Court will not accept any future faxed
documents Plaintiff submits for filing in this case or otherwise.
2. The Court notifies Plaintiff that if she wishes to file a document
in this Court, such filing must be made via hand delivery, United States
postal mail, or by registering for CM/ECF access. A document faxed or e-
mailed to the Clerk or the undersigned will not be filed and the
Court will take no action on any documents Plaintiff faxes to the
Court.
3. Plaintiff’s motion for electronic filing access, Filing No. 9, is
denied without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking electronic filing access through
the appropriate process.
4. Plaintiff’s motion to seal, Filing No. 8, is denied.
5. Plaintiff has until November 6, 2025, to file a signed copy of her
IFP motion, Filing No. 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to
Plaintiff a copy of the signature page of her IFP Motion, Filing No. 2 at 2.
Dated this 29th day of October, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________________
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
8:25-cv-00629-JMG-PRSE Doc # 10 Filed: 10/29/25 Page 4 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>