Chae v. Houston
| 8:2009cv00416 |
| November 19, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| Habeas Corpus (General) Office |
| Pro Se Docket |
| Lyle E. Strom |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
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
42
MEMORANDUM OPINION dismissing the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 . A separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(AOA)
|
|
Filing
36
ORDER - Respondents motion to amend answer 29 is granted. Petitioners objection to motion to amend 34 and motion to strike reply brief 35 are denied. Petitioner shall have until September 30, 2010, in which to file an amended response and/or br ief on the merits of petitioners Claim Eight only. In the event that no response and/or brief is filed by that date, the Court will consider the response and brief already on file with the Court. Respondents motion to strike index 32 is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (MKR)
|
|
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Respondent shall have until 5/17/10, in which to file an amended answer and/or brief on the merits of petitioner's Claim Three. To the extent the objection seeks any other relief, it is denied. No later than 6/16/2010, petitioner shall file his response to respondent's brief on the merits of the petition, as amended. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)
|
|
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioners motion to reconsider order (Filing No. 7 ) is granted. Claim Three of the petition is modified as set forth in this memorandum and order. Petitioners motion to expand record (Filing No. 10 ) is granted. Respondent shall file the additional state court records no later than April 23, 2010. The Court reminds petitioner that his response to respondents brief on the merits of the petition is due May 11, 2010. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (MKR)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER regarding Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 . Upon initial review of the Petition 1 , the Court preliminarily determines that petitioners ClaimsTwo through Eight are potentially cognizable in federal court. The Court determines that peti tioners Claim One is not cognizable in a federal court habeas action and is therefore dismissed. The clerk of the court is directed to mail copies of this Order and the petition to respondent and the NebraskaAttorney General by regular first-class m ail. ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 1/9/2010: deadline for respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment.) Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copies mailed as directed and copy mailed to pro se party)(PCV, )
|
|
Filing
5
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (Filing No. 2 ) is provisionally granted, but petitioner must pay the $5.00 filing fee by January 20, 2010. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )
|
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
| Search for this case: Chae v. Houston | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
