Sherrod v. State of Nebraska et al
Petitioner: James E. Sherrod
Respondent: State of Nebraska and Diane Sabatka-Rine
Case Number: 4:2007cv03216
Filed: August 29, 2007
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: 4 Lincoln Office
County: Lancaster
Presiding Judge: Pro Se Docket
Presiding Judge: Laurie Smith Camp
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 10, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 70 ORDER denying as moot 69 Objection to Petitioner's Motion to Amend Brief. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(EJL)
February 23, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 66 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing 1 and filing 5 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered. The Petitioner's motion to amend his brief (filing 64 ) is granted to the extent shown in the motion. All other pending motions (filing 46 , filing 47 , filing 57 , filing 59 , and filing 61 ) are denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG, )
November 7, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 51 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The respondents' Motion to Extend (filing no. 39 ) is granted. The respondents shall file an answer and separate brief no later than December 8, 2008 following the procedures as set forth in this Memorandum and Order and is to be followed by the respondents and the petitioner. No discovery shall be undertaken without leave of the court. The petitioner's Motions to Appoint Counsel (filing nos. 40 , 41 , and 48 ) are denied. The petitioner's Motion to In vestigate (filing no. 42 ) and Motion to Deny Motion for Summary Dismissal (filing no. 45 ) are denied. However, the petitioner may wish to address these issues in his brief on the merits. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management in this matter with the following text: January 8, 2009: check for response brief by the petitioner.Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG, )
September 5, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 43 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Respondents' Motion for Recusal (Filing No. 38 ) is granted. A copy of this Memorandum and Order shall be provided to Chief Judge Bataillon so that this matter may be reassigned to another judge. Ordered by Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Nebraska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sherrod v. State of Nebraska et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: James E. Sherrod
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: State of Nebraska
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Diane Sabatka-Rine
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?