Christopher Mathiesen v. Timothy P. Burns, Jeffrey J. Funke, Stephanie F. Stacy, William B. Cassel, Jonathan J. Papik, Jason M. Bergevin, John R. Freudenberg, Lindsey Miller-Lerman, Ryan Dougherty, Cody S. Barnett, Christian T. Williams, Keith A. Harvat, and Justin D. Eichmann

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska denied Christopher Mathiesen’s motion to disqualify the Nebraska Attorney General from representing several state court judges in their official and individual capacities. The court found no present actual material conflict of interest. The court also denied without prejudice Mathiesen’s motion for leave to amend because he failed to comply with the local rule requiring an unsigned proposed amended complaint identifying the proposed amendments.

Holdings

1. Representation of a state official in both official and individual capacities does not, by itself, create a concurrent conflict of interest. Disqualification requires an actual material conflict; a potential conflict arising from differing possible defenses is insufficient until it matures into an actual material conflict.
2. Leave to amend was properly denied without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with the local rule requiring an unsigned copy of the proposed amended complaint that clearly identifies the proposed amendments.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Nebraska Attorney General should be disqualified from representing state court judges in their official and individual capacities based on a concurrent conflict of interest.
2. Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to file a second amended complaint adding parties and an abuse-of-process claim despite failing to comply with the local rule governing amendment motions.

Disposition

other