Saleena v. Douglas County District Court et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KERN S. SALEENA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOUGLAS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, and
JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND CLERKS, in
their official capacities;
Defendants.
8:25CV449
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the court on review of the docket. Plaintiff filed
a Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction on July 14, 2025. (Filing No. 1,
Filing No. 3). Summons were issued to Plaintiff as to Defendants Douglas County
District Court and Nebraska Court of Appeals on August 15, 2025. (Filing No. 5). No
summons was ever requested or issued as to Defendant “Judicial Officers and
Clerks in their official capacities.”
On October 20, 2025, the court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause
on or before November 3, 2025 why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) for want of prosecution, as no defendants had yet been served. (Filing
No. 6). The court warned that failure to comply with its order may result in dismissal of
Plaintiff’s complaint without further notice. Plaintiff responded to the show cause order on
November 3, 2025. (Filing No. 7). Plaintiff stated that he was required to travel abroad
unexpectedly for a family medical emergency and was unable to complete service as
required under Rule 4(m), but would take immediate steps to complete service. Upon
8:25-cv-00449-BCB-RCC Doc # 9 Filed: 12/10/25 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # <pageID>

review of Plaintiff’s response, the court found good cause and extended Plaintiff’s deadline
to serve the defendants to December 3, 2025. (Filing No. 8).
To date, Plaintiffs have not filed a return of service indicating service on any
defendant and none of the defendants have voluntarily appeared. This matter has been
pending for nearly five months. Plaintiff was previously warned of the consequences if
service was not timely made and was given an additional month to complete service and
still has not done so. Even though Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, Plaintiff must still comply
with local rules, court orders, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ackra Direct
Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996) (“In general, pro se
representation does not excuse a party from complying with a court's orders and with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”); Bennett v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 295 F.3d 805,
808 (8th Cir. 2002) (A litigant's “pro se status d[oes] not entitle him to disregard the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure[.]”). Given the additional opportunity Plaintiff was given to
complete service, the undersigned now recommends the court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS RECOMMENDED to the Honorable Brian C. Buescher, United States District
Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, without
prejudice, in its entirety for want of prosecution without further notice.
The parties are notified that failing to file an objection to this recommendation as
provided in the local rules of this court may be held to be a waiver of any right to appeal
the court’s adoption of the recommendation.
Dated this 10th day of December, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Ryan C. Carson
United States Magistrate Judge
8:25-cv-00449-BCB-RCC Doc # 9 Filed: 12/10/25 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # <pageID>