IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

SUSANNE BECKER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JAMES THOMAS HURD,

Defendant.

8:23CV208

ORDER

SUSANNE BECKER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

RANDALL COUNTY COURT,

Defendant.

8:23CV270

ORDER

SUSANNE BECKER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, JEAN 

RHODES, MARK SCHMIDT, and CINDY 

SCHMIDT,

Defendants.

8:23CV275

ORDER

SUSANNE BECKER HURD,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

8:23CV278

ORDER

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 12 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 1 of 8 - Page ID # 42
2

LYNETTE STODDARD, AUDREY M. 

ELLIOT LONG, MARK R. SCHMIDT, and 

CINDY SCHMIDT,

Defendants.

SUSANNE BECKER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JAMES REGEAN, Individual capacity, official 

capacity;

Defendant.

8:23CV279

ORDER

SUSANN BECKER HURD,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

KADEE BAYLESS, and COURTNEY R. 

GLIEM,

Defendants.

8:23CV284

ORDER

SUSANN BECKER HURD,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

AUDREY LONG, MARK SCHMIDT, CYTHIA 

SCHMIDT, SCOTTSBLUFF PUBLIC 

SCHOOL DISTRICT, and AULICK,

Defendants.

8:23CV285

ORDER

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 12 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 2 of 8 - Page ID # 43
3

SUSANN BECKER HURD,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

KIRK FELLHOELTER, KRISTEN MICKEY, 

AUDREY MILLER, KADEE BAYLESS, 

MICHAEL MODEC, SCOTTSBLUFF 

COUNTY COURT, and SCOTTSBLUFF 

PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendants.

8:23CV286

ORDER

SUSANNE BECKER HURD,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

STATE OF NEBRASKA, CITY OF 

SCOTTSBLUFF, and SCOTTSBLUFF 

COUNTY COURT,

Defendants.

8:23CV288

ORDER

SUSANN BECKER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SCOTTSBLUFF COUNTY SHERIFF,

Defendant.

8:23CV293

ORDER

SUSANNE BECKER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

8:23CV294

ORDER

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 12 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 3 of 8 - Page ID # 44
4

SCOTTS BLUFF COUNTY, 

SCOTTSBLUFF CITY, GERING CITY, and 

STATE OF NEBRASKA,

Defendants.

SUSANN BECKER HURD,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

AUDERY ELLIOT LONG,

Defendant.

8:23CV295

ORDER

SUSANNE BECKER HURD,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COUNTY OF SCOTTSBLUFF, and CITY 

OF GERING,

Defendants.

8:23CV302

ORDER

SUSANNE BECKER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SCOTTS BLUFF SHERIFF OFFICE, and 

GMC FINANCIAL,

Defendants.

8:23CV316

ORDER

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 12 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 4 of 8 - Page ID # 45
5

The above-captioned cases are before the Court on an e-mail sent by Plaintiff 

Susanne Becker, also known as Susanne Becker Hurd,1to the Clerk of the Court on 

August 7, 2023, which was filed at the direction of the Court as a motion in each of 

Plaintiff’s 14 pending pro se cases. E.g., Filing No. 11, Case No. 8:23CV208. In the email, as the Court understands it, Plaintiff takes the position that she can e-mail the Clerk 

her motions and pleadings and the Clerk is required to file them under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 5(d)(4). 

Construing Plaintiff’s e-mail as a motion to file documents in her pending cases by 

e-mailing the documents to the Clerk of the Court, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion. 

Plaintiff essentially appears to be attempting to avoid the Court’s established procedures 

and requirements for electronically filing documents with the Court. Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(3)(B), “[a] person not represented by an attorney: (i) may file 

electronically only if allowed by court order or by local rule; and (ii) may be required to file 

electronically only by court order, or by a local rule that includes reasonable exceptions.” 

This Court’s local rules permit pro se parties to use the Court’s electronic case filing 

(“CM/ECF”) system (“System”) by registering with the Public Access to Court Electronic 

Records (“PACER”) system. See NEGenR 1.3(b)(1). Though Plaintiff previously had her 

PACER access revoked, on July 25, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to 

reinstate her electronic filing access and specifically directed Plaintiff that she “may 

reinstate her PACER account using her existing account that the Court has on record by 

e-mailing the Clerk of Court at NEDdb_Clerk_Mail@ned.uscourts.gov and specifically 

identifying the cases for which she would like to have electronic filing access.” Filing No. 

1 Plaintiff also identifies herself as “Susann” Becker or “Susann” Becker Hurd in Case Nos. 8:23CV284, 

8:23CV285, 8:23CV286, 8:23CV293, and 8:23CV295.

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 12 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 5 of 8 - Page ID # 46
6

10 at 7, Case No. 8:23CV208. Thus, all Plaintiff has to do if she wants to file 

documents electronically in her cases is e-mail the Clerk’s office with a list of the 

case numbers for which she wants electronic filing access. Once Plaintiff does 

that, the Clerk of the Court will grant her electronic filing access for each of the 

cases identified.

As defined by the Court’s local rules, “‘[e]lectronic filing’ or ‘electronically file’ 

means uploading a document directly from a registered user’s computer, using the court’s 

Internet-based System to file that document in the court’s case file. . . . Sending a 

document to the court via electronic mail (e-mail) or facsimile transmission (fax) is not 

electronic filing.” NEGenR 1.1(d)(5). Moreover, “[a] document faxed or e-mailed to the 

clerk or assigned judge is not considered filed without a court order.” NECivR 5.1(c). As 

a pro se litigant, Plaintiff is “bound by and must comply with all local and federal 

procedural rules.” NEGenR 1.3(g). While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(4)

provides that “[t]he clerk must not refuse to file a paper solely because it is not in the form 

prescribed by these rules or by a local rule or practice,” the Court advises Plaintiff that the 

Court will not allow Plaintiff to avoid the established requirements for electronically filing 

documents in this Court and, going forward, the Court will not accept any documents 

Plaintiff e-mails to the Clerk for filing in any of her cases and such documents will be 

returned to Plaintiff without filing at the Court’s direction. There is no need for Plaintiff to 

e-mail any documents to the Clerk for filing when the Court has permitted her access to 

the Court’s CM/ECF System. If Plaintiff wants to electronically file documents with the 

Court, she can do so in compliance with federal and local rules.

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 12 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 6 of 8 - Page ID # 47
7

Lastly, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s e-mail seems to indicate that materials she 

submits for filing are submitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(2), which 

governs nonelectronic filings, and she “didn’t give [the Clerk] any permission to upload 

my non paper form to be electronic form under Rule 5(d)3 [sic].” Filing No. 11, Case No. 

8:23CV208. However, documents filed “nonelectronically” with the Court are scanned 

and uploaded to the System. See NEGenR 1.1(d)(5) (“Electronic filing also includes 

uploading to the System done by the clerk of a document given to the court in paper 

format or as a .pdf . . . file.”); NECivR 5.1(e) (“The clerk does not maintain a paper court 

file in any case unless required by law or local rule.”); NECivR 5.1(e)(2) (“The clerk scans 

and discards original documents brought to the clerk for filing unless the document’s size 

or nature requires that it be kept in a paper format.”). Documents are not considered filed 

“until the filing party receives a System generated NEF after uploading the document to 

the System.” NECivR 5.1(c). Per the Court’s local rules, documents submitted by Plaintiff 

for filing in this Court will be uploaded to the System.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s e-mail, construed as a motion to file documents by e-mail, Filing 

No. 11, Case No. 8:23CV208; Filing No. 9, Case No. 8:23CV270; Filing No. 9, Case No. 

8:23CV275; Filing No. 10, Case No. 8:23CV278; Filing No. 11, Case No. 8:23CV279; 

Filing No. 9, Case No. 8:23CV284; Filing No. 10, Case No. 8:23CV285; Filing No. 9, Case 

No. 8:23CV286; Filing No. 10, Case No. 8:23CV288; Filing No. 10, Case No. 8:23CV293; 

Filing No. 12, Case No. 8:23CV294; Filing No. 11, Case No. 8:23CV295; Filing No. 9, 

Case No. 8:23CV302; Filing No. 4, Case No. 8:23CV316, is denied.

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 12 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 7 of 8 - Page ID # 48
8

2. Any e-mail submitted by Plaintiff to the Clerk of the Court in which Plaintiff 

seeks to file a document in any of her cases shall be referred to the Supervising Pro Se 

Judge for review, and the Clerk of the Court is directed not to file any e-mail or e-mailed 

document until this review has been completed. The Supervising Pro se Judge shall 

review the e-mail and shall return the e-mail to Plaintiff without filing if it is determined that 

the proposed e-mail does not comply with this Order or federal or local rules. A record of 

any such submission and return shall be maintained by the Clerk in the CM/ECF system 

under the “PS” designation or as otherwise directed by the Supervising Pro Se Judge.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at her 

address on file with the Court and transmit a copy of this Order to Plaintiff via e-mail in 

response to her August 7, 2023 e-mail to the Clerk’s Office.

Dated this 9th day of August, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00208-JFB-PRSE Doc # 12 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 8 of 8 - Page ID # 49