Miksch v. Hansen
| Patrick M. Miksch |
| Brad Hansen |
| Nebraska Attorney General |
| 4:2018cv03008 |
| January 18, 2018 |
| 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
26
ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 23 )is granted. The clerk's office is directed to provide the Eighth Circuit Court ofAppeals with a copy of this order. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copies mailed as directed) (LKO)
|
|
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability (filing no. 19 ) is denied. Petitioner is directed to submit the $505.00 fees to the clerk's office or submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis by May 30, 2018. The clerk of the court is directed to send to Petitioner the Form AO240 (Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit). The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this matter with the following text: May 30, 2018: Check for MFIFP or payment. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)
|
|
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - that the "reply" (filing no. 17 ) is stricken because it was not authorized by the progression order and separately because it is moot. Furthermore, the "reply" considered as a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a)&(b) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)
|
|
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The objection (filing no. 12 ) to the motion for summary judgment is denied. The motion for summary judgment (filing no. 9 ) is granted. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (filing no. 1 ) is denied anddismissed with prejudice. No certificate of appealability has been or will be issued. A judgment will be entered by separate document. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER - Upon initial review of the habeas corpus petition (Filing No. 1 ), the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's claims, as they are set forth in this Memorandum and Order, are potentially cognizable in federal court. By March 12 , 2018, 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 12, 2018: 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: April 9, 2018: check for Respondent's answer and separate brief. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER denying as moot MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis 2 filed by Patrick M. Miksch. 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. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(CCB)
|
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.
