Butler v. Jeffers et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
STEVEN BUTLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER MICHAEL JEFFERS, OFFICER
DAVID BLYTHE, OFFICER RONALD
BODEN, and OFFICER STEWART
DANBURG, in their individual capacities,1
Defendants.
4:24CV3002
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
On January 7, 2026, the Court dismissed this case (Filing No. 63) pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because pro se plaintiff Steven Butler (“Butler”)
failed to comply with this Court’s November 18, 2025, Memorandum and Order (Filing
No. 62) ordering him to “amend his complaint on or before December 1, 2025,” and
respond to the then-pending Motion for Summary Judgment on Behalf of Defendants
(Filing No. 53) “on or before December 18, 2025.” 	In light of that dismissal, the Court
denied the pending motion as moot and entered judgment the same day (Filing No. 64).
The Court mailed copies of its Memorandum and Order and Judgment to Butler at his
address of record—19348 E Levy Street, Williston, FL 32696.
Now before the Court is Butler’s Notice of Non-Receipt of Court Correspondence;
Motion to Reissue Notices/Provide Docket & Notice History; Motion to Reset Status
Conference; Request for Reasonable Accommodations and Appointment of Counsel
(Filing No. 65). Reporting he seeks to “ensure the record is accurate and to request relief
necessary to protect due process and allow this case to proceed on the merits,” Butler avers
1 This Court previously identified (Filing No. 62) some issues with the names of the
defendants in the operative pleading (Filing No. 9). As before, the Court has used what it
understands to be the defendants’ correct names for purposes of this order.
4:24-cv-03002-RFR-RCC Doc # 66 Filed: 01/30/26 Page 1 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
that he has not received any correspondence from the Court since receiving the notice
canceling a status conference that was set for October 28, 2025.2
According to Butler, he is “concerned that he may have unknowingly missed
deadlines or settings due to lack of notice and asks the Court to ensure he has a complete
and current record.” In that vein, he states the following:
To the extent this action has been dismissed, closed, or administratively
terminated based on a missed setting, missed deadline, or failure to respond
that Plaintiff did not receive notice of, Plaintiff moves for relief under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(l) (excusable neglect) and 60(b)(6) (any other reason
justifying relief), and requests the Court vacate such dismissal/closure and
reopen the case. Plaintiff acts promptly upon discovering the issue and seeks
resolution on the merits rather than by procedural default.
(emphasis in original). 	He further requests “reasonable accommodations,” such as
“receiving notices by both mail and email” (emphasis in original) and the “appointment
of counsel or pro bono referral.”
Having carefully reviewed Butler’s motion, the Court finds he is not entitled to any
relief at this time. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6). 	To start, the Court is skeptical of
Butler’s claim that he has not received any notice or other correspondence in this case for
the past four months and remains in the dark as to the status of his case. 	The Court has
consistently sent its notices and rulings in this case to Butler’s address of record—the same
address he presently asks the Court to use. 	None of them have been returned as
undeliverable, and the Court is not persuaded on this record that its process—which has
been used repeatedly in myriad cases without issue—has suddenly broken down.
At the very least, Butler’s motion and his specific requests for relief strongly suggest
that he might actually be aware that his case has been dismissed for failure to comply with
2 The Court notes it sent that notice to Butler’s address of record on October 21,
2025. In his motion, he confirms that is his correct address.
4:24-cv-03002-RFR-RCC Doc # 66 Filed: 01/30/26 Page 2 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
the Court’s prior Memorandum and Order.3 What’s more, a purported breakdown in the
process of delivering hard-copy documents to Butler would not wholly absolve him of his
affirmative duty to prosecute his own case in a timely manner or comply with the Court’s
orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
In any event, without more, Butler’s naked assertion that he has not received notice
in this case since October 2025 is not sufficient to establish excusable neglect under
Rule 60(b)(1) or to otherwise justify the extraordinary remedy of relief from judgment
under Rule 60(b)(6). 	See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (reiterating that
“a movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6)” must “show ‘extraordinary circumstances’
justifying the reopening of a final judgment”); Mehner v. Furniture Design Studios, Inc.,
143 F.4th 941, 955 (8th Cir. 2025) (declining to consider a claim for relief under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) “in the absence of any meaningful argument”);
Bennett v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 295 F.3d 805, 808 (8th Cir. 2002) (affirming the
district court’s determination “that this was not the exceptional case requiring the
extraordinary relief from judgment available under Rule 60(b)(1)”).
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. 	Plaintiff Steven Butler’s Notice of Non-Receipt of Court Correspondence;
Motion to Reissue Notices/Provide Docket & Notice History; Motion to
Reset Status Conference; Request for Reasonable Accommodations and
Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 65) is denied.
2. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to send Butler by certified mail to his address
of record copies of this Memorandum and Order; the Court’s January 7,
2026, dismissal order (Filing No. 63) and Judgment (Filing No. 64); and its
November 18, 2025, Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 62).
3 Like the Court’s prior rulings, that Memorandum and Order specifically warned
Butler that his failure to comply “could result in the dismissal of this case without further
notice.”
4:24-cv-03002-RFR-RCC Doc # 66 Filed: 01/30/26 Page 3 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

4
Dated this 30th day of January 2026.
BY THE COURT:
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
4:24-cv-03002-RFR-RCC Doc # 66 Filed: 01/30/26 Page 4 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>