Meier v. Long et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JONATHAN MEIER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LONG, cpl, Individual and Official capacity;
et. al.;
Defendants.
8:24CV389
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a document filed by Plaintiff Jonathan Meier
(“Plaintiff”) titled “motion: to take notice of attempts to resolve and get documents” (the
“Motion”), which this Court construes as a discovery motion. Filing No. 70. The Motion
shall be denied as premature.
As explained previously by this Court, “[b]ecause the Initial Review has not yet
been performed the Discovery Motion shall be denied without prejudice as any motion
seeking discovery is premature until the Court has determined upon initial review that the
Complaint may proceed to service of process.” Filing No. 67 at 3 (citing Jackson v.
Herrington, 393 F. App'x 348, 353 (6th Cir. 2010) (“Rule 4 requires plaintiffs to serve each
defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint. But district courts cannot issue
summonses in in forma pauperis prisoner cases until after screening the complaint for
frivolousness and other defects under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A(b).”) (citation
omitted)). To reiterate, Plaintiff’s lengthy amended complaint and supplement, see Filing
Nos. 61 and 62, has not yet proceeded past initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and
1915A(b), formal discovery has not yet begun and shall not take place until after the Initial
Review is performed, and (if this Court determines this matter may proceed to service of
8:24-cv-00389-JFB-PRSE Doc # 72 Filed: 01/21/26 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
process), the defendants must still be served and a progression order must be entered
before any discovery may take place. See id.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion, Filing No. 70, shall be
denied without prejudice as premature. Plaintiff is once again advised that the next step
in his case will be for the Court to conduct an initial review of the claims set forth in
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Supplement to determine whether summary dismissal
is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). The Court will conduct this
initial review in its normal course of business.
Dated this 21st day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Court
8:24-cv-00389-JFB-PRSE Doc # 72 Filed: 01/21/26 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID #
<pageID>