Smith v. Frakes
| William E. Smith |
| Scott R. Frakes |
| Nebraska Attorney General |
| 4:2016cv03162 |
| October 17, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| 4 Lincoln Office |
| Pro Se Docket |
| Richard G. Kopf |
| 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
44
ORDER - The motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (filing no. 40 ) is granted. The motion for extension of time to file certificate of appealability (filing no. 42 ) is denied to the extent this court has jurisdiction to rule on such a motio n, but the Clerk shall refer Petitioner's motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The motion to alter or amend judgment (filing no. 43 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
|
|
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - the motion for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (filing no. 1 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. No certificate of appealability has been or will be issued. A separate judgement will be entered. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER denying 34 Motion for Leave to File Attached Motion. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(SLP)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER - The petitioner's motion for a stay and abeyance (filing no. 28 ) is denied due to a lack of a showing of good cause. Petitioner shall have until close of business Monday, July 17, 2017, to submit his response to the brief of the Respondent (filing no. 22 ). No further extensions of time will be granted. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER - Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Attached Motion (filing no. 28 ) is granted, but only as to page 1 of filing no. 28 . Respondent shall file a response to the "Conditioning Stay and Abeyance" appearing as filing no. 28 , pages 2-6, no later than June 16, 2017. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER - Petitioner's Motion Requesting Respondent's Designation of State Court Records In Its Entirety (filing no. 23 ) is denied, based on Respondent's response. Petitioner's Motion For Extension of Time to File Reply to Respondent's Brief (filing no. 25 ) is granted. Petitioner's reply brief due date is extended June 22, 2017. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER - that Respondent shall file his response to Petitioner's Motion Requesting Respondent's Designation of State Court Records in its Entirety (filing no. 23 ) on or before June 1, 2017. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER - The praecipe for bill of exception (filing no. 17 ) is denied. The letter (filing no. 15 ) construed as a motion to amend the description of Claim One is granted, in that Claim One (b) should properly be stated as "was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel regarding the assault and weapons convictions...". Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER - that the motion requesting additional documents (filing no. 11 ) is denied in light of Respondent's response (filing no. 14 ). Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
|
|
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Upon initial review of the Petition (Filing No. 1), the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's claims are potentially cognizable in federal court. By March 10, 2017, Respondent must file a motion for summary 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: March 10, 2017: deadline for Respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment. If Respondent elects to file an answer, the following procedures must be followed by Respondent and Petitioner: By March 10, 2017, Respondent must file all state court records that are relevant to the cognizable claims. No later than 30 days after the relevant state court records are filed, Respondent must file an answer. No later than 30 days after Respondents brief is filed, Petitioner must file and serve a brief in response. No lat er than 30 days after Petitioners brief is filed, Respondent must file and serve a reply brief. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: April 10, 2017: check for Respon dent's answer and separate brief. No discovery shall be undertaken without leave of the court. Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 4) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (ADB)
|
|
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 2 ) is granted. Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Filing No. 4 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. The next step in this case is for the court to conduct a preliminary review of the habeas corpus petition in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. The court will conduct this review in its normal course of business. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
|
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.
