Murillo v. Houston
Petitioner: Jaime Murillo
Respondent: Robert Houston
Interested Party: Nebraska Attorney General
Case Number: 4:2012cv03220
Filed: October 31, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: 4 Lincoln Office
Presiding Judge: Joseph F. Bataillon
Presiding Judge: Pro Se Docket
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 7, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER regarding Notice of Appeal to USCA 19 . No order will be entered in this § 2254 case, and the party is permitted to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis as to defendnat Jaime Murillo. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(AOA)
May 8, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 17 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER- Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 9 ) is granted. Murillo's Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 11 ) is denied. Murillo's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1 ) i s denied in all respects and this action is dismissed with prejudice. The court will not issue a certificate of appealability in this matter. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)
November 14, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 6 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Upon initial review of the habeas corpus petition (Filing No. 1 ), the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's claims, as set forth in this Memorandum and Order, are potentially cognizable in federal court. The Clerk of the court is directed to mail copies of this memorandum and order and the section 2254 petition to Respondent and the Nebraska Attorney General by regular first-class mail. By December 28, 2012, Respondent shall file a motion for sum mary judgment or state court records in support of an answer. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: December 28, 2012: deadline for Respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: January 28, 2013: check for Respondent to file answer and separate brief. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party and as directed) (AOA)
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: Murillo v. Houston
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Interested party: Nebraska Attorney General
Represented By: Jon C. Bruning
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: Robert Houston
Represented By: George R. Love
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 ]
Petitioner: Jaime Murillo
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?