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 STRIKING ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS AND REVOKING
PLAINTIFF’S CM/ECF FILING
PRIVILEGES
AND
ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY FUTURE SUBMISSIONS
SHOULD NOT BE SCREENED BY THE
COURT BEFORE FILING
The Court has previously filed two orders clarifying the docket because of improper or
improperly docketed documents filed by the pro se Plaintiff, who alleges discrimination in
violation of the Fair Housing Act. Filing 55; Filing 62. The Court has also filed an order striking
a document filed by Plaintiff because that document was also improperly docketed. Filing 65.
Nevertheless, within a few minutes of the Court filing the latter order—but after Plaintiff was sent
email notification of the filing of that order—Plaintiff filed two more improper and improperly
docketed documents. Filing 66 and Filing 67.
Filing 66 was docketed by Plaintiff as a Supplement and internally titled “Plaintiff’s
Supplemental Evidence in Support of Objection (Doc. 60).” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72
does not authorize an objecting party to submit additional evidence in support of objections to a
magistrate judge’s order without leave of the Court. Filing 66 is improper.
Filing 67 is another in a series of documents improperly docketed by Plaintiff as a Motion
for an Order Affirming the Commissioner’s Decision, but it is internally titled “Plaintiff’s Motion
for Judicial Notice of Exhibited Evidence Demonstrating Retaliation, Discrimination, and
8:24-cv-00430-BCB-RCC Doc # 70 Filed: 11/03/25 Page 1 of 5 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
Misrepresentation.” The Court has previously made clear that this action is not for judicial review
of any federal agency’s decision and that there is no administrative record, so there is no
Commissioner’s Decision to be affirmed or denied. Consequently, the Court directed the
redocketing of various documents improperly docketed in similar ways under the correct CM/ECF
“events.” See, e.g., Filing 55 at 2; Filing 62 at 2. The Court has also previously explained that there
is no provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Court’s local rules for serial filing
of “notices” and “clarifications” of prior pleadings. See Filing 62 at 2. Similarly, Plaintiff’s serial
submissions of evidence are contrary to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide that
once the pleadings of the parties have been filed, the case proceeds to discovery and motion
practice pursuant to a Progression Order, not by serial submissions of evidence. See, e.g., Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
The Court previously cautioned Plaintiff that even though he is a pro se litigant he is
required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s local rules, and this
Court’s orders. Filing 55 at 5; Filing 62 at 2–3; see also Fletcher v. Brown Cnty, No. 7:05CV5024,
2008 WL 752661, at *2 (D. Neb. Mar. 18, 2008) (“[A] pro se plaintiff must ‘comply with all local
rules . . . and with the federal rules of procedure.’” (quoting NECivR 1.3(g))); NECivR
7.1(b)(1)(B)). Plaintiff is clearly making no effort to follow the Court’s guidance to file documents
under the proper CM/ECF events or to comply with applicable rules for the orderly resolution of
this case. The Court has been compelled to devote resources better spent on other matters to
address and correct Plaintiff’s improper filings, as well as to indicate to Plaintiff what documents
may be filed and how they may be filed. The Court previously cautioned Plaintiff that not only
will filings that are improper or made under improper CM/ECF events by stricken, but that
8:24-cv-00430-BCB-RCC Doc # 70 Filed: 11/03/25 Page 2 of 5 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
continued conduct such as this will result in the Court revoking Plaintiff’s rights to electronically
file documents. Filing 65 at 1.
Plaintiff has a right to access the courts. However, his right of access cannot be unlimited
in the face of abuse. A plaintiff who persists in making frivolous filings can be banned from making
filings or filing any lawsuits in this Court for a certain duration in the future. In re Tyler, 839 F.2d
1290, 1293 (8th Cir. 1988) (“The Court may, in its discretion, place reasonable restrictions on any
litigant who files non-meritorious actions for obviously malicious purposes and who generally
abuses judicial process. These restrictions may be directed to provide limitations or conditions on
the filing of future suits.” (internal citations omitted)). More specifically,
The Court has authority to control and manage matters pending before
it. . . . The need for such control bears noting. First, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provides that the rules shall be construed to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every action. Three fundamental goals underlie
this mandate: maintaining the quality of justice, avoiding delay, and improving the
efficiency of dispute resolution. In order to secure these values, we must recognize
that judicial resources are limited in the short run and need to be protected from
wasteful consumption. Frivolous, bad faith claims consume a significant amount of
judicial resources, diverting the time and energy of the judiciary away from
processing good faith claims.
The most apparent effect of excessive litigation is the imposition of
unnecessary burdens on, and the useless consumption of, court resources. As
caseloads increase, courts have less time to devote to each case. A lack of adequate
time for reflection threatens the quality of justice. . . . Abusive litigation results in
prolonged, repetitive harassment of defendants causing frustration and often
extraordinary and unreasonable expenditures of time and money defending against
unfounded claims.
Defendants have a right to be free from harassing, abusive, and meritless
litigation. Federal courts have a clear obligation to exercise their authority to protect
litigants from such behavior. The Court may, in its discretion, place reasonable
restrictions on any litigant who files non-meritorious actions for obviously
malicious purposes and who generally abuses judicial process. These restrictions
may be directed to provide limitations or conditions on the filing of future suits.
In re Tyler, 839 F.2d at 1292–93 (8th Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted) (quoting People of the
State of Colorado v. Carter, 678 F. Supp. 1484, 1486 (D. Colo. 1986)); see also Williams v.
8:24-cv-00430-BCB-RCC Doc # 70 Filed: 11/03/25 Page 3 of 5 - Page ID #
<pageID>

4
McKenzie, 834 F.2d 152, 154 (8th Cir. 1987) (“An in forma pauperis litigant’s access to the courts
is a matter of privilege, not of right, and should not be used to abuse the process of the courts.”).
The Court finds that imposing filing restrictions on Plaintiff in this case is warranted to
protect the Court from “unnecessary burdens on, and the useless consumption of, court resources”
and to protect Defendants from harassing and meritless motions. Id. Thus, Plaintiff will be ordered
to show cause by the deadline below why Plaintiff should not be required to submit all proposed
filings for review by the Court before filing. The Court would then authorize filing only of
submissions by Plaintiff that the Court determines request proper action by the Court. The Court
would direct that improper filings would not be filed but would instead be returned to Plaintiff
with a copy retained in a “correspondence” file.
A plaintiff who files frivolous claims or documents can also be sanctioned and held
personally financially responsible for the costs associated with requiring defendants to respond to
nonsense. Kurkowski v. Volcker, 819 F.2d 201, 203–04 (8th Cir. 1987) (explaining that Rule 11 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “allows the district court to impose sanctions whenever a
plaintiff”—including a pro se plaintiff—“has filed a frivolous lawsuit”). In certain cases, and upon
appropriate legal action being taken, a plaintiff’s assets can be seized to pay for the costs associated
with a plaintiff’s conduct. See, e.g., Eckert v. Lane, 678 F. Supp. 773, 777 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 26,
1988) (imposing Rule 11 sanctions upon a pro se plaintiff for “frivolous filings” and directing the
United States Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas “to collect such amount by
garnishment, execution, or other appropriate means”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Filing 66 is stricken as improper and improperly docketed;
8:24-cv-00430-BCB-RCC Doc # 70 Filed: 11/03/25 Page 4 of 5 - Page ID #
<pageID>

5
2. Filing 67 is stricken as improper and improperly docketed; and
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to revoke Plaintiff’s permission to use CM/ECF for
electronic filing in this case. Plaintiff must submit all proposed filings in paper form to the Clerk’s
Office. The Clerk of Court will now serve orders and other filings in paper format via mail, as
Plaintiff will no longer receive electronic notice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file in paper form a Response to Order to
Show Cause post-marked or stamped received by the Clerk not later than Friday, November 14,
2025, showing cause why all Plaintiff’s future submissions should not be reviewed by the Court
prior to filing, with the Court authorizing filing only of submissions requesting proper action by
the Court and directing that documents that the Court determines are improper will not be filed but
will be retained in a “correspondence” file.
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________
Brian C. Buescher
United States District Judge
8:24-cv-00430-BCB-RCC Doc # 70 Filed: 11/03/25 Page 5 of 5 - Page ID #
<pageID>