Gibilisco v. Houston
| Philip P. Gibilisco |
| Robert Houston |
| Nebraska Attorney General |
| 4:2010cv03070 |
| April 23, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| 4 Lincoln Office |
| Joseph F. Bataillon |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 36 Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Petitioner's Motion for Certificate of Appealability (filing no. 37 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion before the Eighth Circuit. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party and the Eighth Circuit)(JAB)
|
|
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 31 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB, )
|
|
Filing
29
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Petitioner Philip P. Gibilisco's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)
|
|
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Petitioner's "Second Motion for Default Judgment" 22 , "Motion to Reassert Former Pleadings" 23 , and "Motion for Release Pending Review" 27 are denied. Respondent's Motions to Extend Order 12 and 26 are granted. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)
|
|
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that 13 Motion for Default Judgment, 15 Motion for Clarification of Habeas Claim, 16 Motion in Request for Additional State Court Documents, 17 Motion for Leave to Submit State Court Documents are denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB, )
|
|
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 7 Motion for Clarification which the court liberally construes as a Motion to Amend Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court decides that Claims One through Four are cognizable in a federal court habeas action. The Clerk of the court is directed to mail copies of this memorandum and order and the amended section 2254 petition to Respondent and the Nebraska Attorney General by regular first-class mail. By July 31, 2010, Respondent shall file a motion for sum mary judgment or state court records in support of an answer. If Respondent elects to file an answer, the procedures listed in the order shall be followed by Respondent and Petitioner. No discovery shall be undertaken without leave of the court. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (copy of this order, petition 1 , amended petition 7 mailed to respondent and Nebraska Attorney General per pro se law clerk)(ADB, )
|
|
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - that upon initial review, the court preliminarily determines that claims 1 through 3 of the petition are potentially cognizable in federal court; claim 4 is not cognizable and is dismissed. The Clerk is directed to mail copies of this memorandum and order and the Section 2254 petition to Respondent and the Nebraska Attorney General. Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 7/16/2010: deadline for Respondent to file state court records; Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 8/16/2010: check for Respondent to file answer and separate brief. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party and as directed) (JSF)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
