Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ken L. Michaelis (Formally Known as Kenneth L. Michaelis) and Iona Rae Michaelis Rory Lee Michaelis, a Minor, by Ken L. Michaelis, His Father and Next Friend, and Kyle Lee Michaelis, a Minor, by Ken L. Michaelis, His Father and Next Friend v. The Nebraska State Bar Association, a Nebraska Association, and Homer Ed Hurt, Jr. James Egley Kenneth Olds Pliny M. Moodie Robert D. Moodie John M. Thor, Jr. Stanley P. Gushard William E. Webster, All Nebraska Lawyers and Members of the Nebraska State Bar Association Richard P. Garden, a Nebraska Lawyer and Member of the Nebraska State Bar Association Lucille Toelle Norris Maack Richard Lindberg Gwen Lindberg, D/B/A West Point News Theodore M. Huettmann and Gladys M. Huettmann, D/B/A Wisner News-Chronicle the Norfolk Daily News Fremont Tribune Lincoln Journal Newspaper Omaha World Herald Company, Owner-Publisher of Omaha World Herald Newspapers the Associated Press Wireservices and Paul Douglas, Ken L. Michaelis (Formally Known as Kenneth L. Michaelis) and Iona Rae Mich
Citations: 717 F.2d 437; 37 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 822; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16962Docket: 83-1766
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; September 13, 1983; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves an appeal by Ken L. Michaelis, Iona Rae Michaelis, and their minor children against the Nebraska State Bar Association and various Nebraska lawyers regarding the dismissal of their civil rights complaints by the district court. The court dismissed the complaints with prejudice, citing Michaelis's failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 8, which requires a clear and concise statement of claims. Michaelis, previously disbarred following misconduct during his 1978 County Attorney campaign, had his initial complaint dismissed without prejudice but was allowed to amend it. However, the subsequent complaints were nearly identical to the original and did not address the deficiencies noted by the court. The Eighth Circuit Court affirmed the district court's dismissal, noting that repeated violations of Rule 8 justified the dismissal with prejudice. The appeal was submitted on September 7, 1983, and decided on September 13, 1983. Michaelis repeatedly failed to comply with Rule 8, despite clear warnings and opportunities from the district court. His initial complaint was deemed excessively lengthy and confusing, leading to its dismissal with permission to amend. The amended complaint was even longer, and Michaelis initiated a second similar action with substantial overlap in content. This excessive prolixity rendered a fair trial unfeasible, justifying the dismissal of both complaints with prejudice. Additionally, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as the complaints addressed issues previously resolved in Michaelis' disciplinary proceedings with the Nebraska Supreme Court, which he had unsuccessfully appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The district court's dismissals were further supported by precedent indicating that state court orders on bar matters can only be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, not through lower federal court actions. Thus, the district court's dismissals were upheld.