Fleury v. Judy S. Proproperties et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JUDY K. FLEURY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JUDY S. PROPERTIES, LYNCH, Officer
of Omaha Police Department; DARWIN
MILLER, and his partner; MARYLYN
MILLER, and THOMAS SHIRES II,
Defendants.
8:25CV476
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff’s original complaint named various parties, including the US Government
and listed false imprisonment, theft by deception, abuse of power, “Terrisium,” “groomed
[unreadable] sex -trafficking,” and ‘plaintiff’s child raped by husband’s family’ in the
caption. (Filing No. 1). The complaint did not allege any specific facts in support. An
amended complaint was filed on September 12, 2025 naming Defendants Judy S.
Properties, Officer Lynch of the Omaha Police Department, “Darwin Miller and his partner
Mariyln” and Thomas Shires II. (Filing No. 4). The amended complaint listed false
imprisonment, sex-trafficking, abuse of power, theft by deception, traitor of American
citizens, [unreadable] innocent children. (Filing No. 4). Plaintiff amended the complaint
again on September 16, 2025, without first seeking permission to amend under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15. Filing No. 5 listed abuse of power, sex-trafficking, theft by deception, “torturing by
scaring innocent children (police),” participating in defamation acts, traitor of the America.
Plaintiff again named Judy S. Properties, Darwin Miller, Marylyn Miller, Officer Lynch,
and Thomas Shires II as defendants.
8:25-cv-00476-JFB-RCC Doc # 7 Filed: 10/27/25 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # <pageID>

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 provides that a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of
course, and in all other cases a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s
written consent or the court’s leave. The Local Rules in this District allow a court to
consider an amended pleading as supplemental to, rather than as superseding the original
pleading, unless the pleading states that it supersedes the prior pleading. NECivR 15.1(b).
Accordingly, Filing No. 5 will not be stricken as filed without leave of the court. However,
any further efforts to amend the pleadings must be filed in accordance with NECivR
15.1(a).
Pursuant to the federal rules of Civil Procedure and this court’s rules, a complaint
must be served within 90 days of filing the lawsuit. This action was filed on July 25, 2025
and the amendment of pleadings does not extend the time for service. The 90-day period
for service passed on October 23, 2025. Plaintiff requested summons as to Defendants Judy
S. Properties, Lynch, Marylyn Miller, Darwin Miller, and Thomas Shires II, but Plaintiff
has not filed a return of service indicating service on any of the named defendants and none
of the defendants have voluntarily appeared. The plaintiff will be ordered to show cause
why this case should not be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and for want of
prosecution.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff shall have until November 17, 2025 to show cause
why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) or
for want of prosecution. The failure to timely comply with this order may result in dismissal
of this action without further notice.
Dated this 27th day of October, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Ryan C. Carson
United States Magistrate Judge
8:25-cv-00476-JFB-RCC Doc # 7 Filed: 10/27/25 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # <pageID>