Brown v. State of Nebraska
Petitioner: Terron Brown
Respondent: State of Nebraska
Interested Party: Nebraska Attorney General
Case Number: 8:2010cv00236
Filed: June 21, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: 8 Omaha Office
Presiding Judge: Pro Se Docket
Presiding Judge: Warren K. Urbom
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
January 9, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 42 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF APPEALABILITY - Brown's Motion for Certification of Appealability (filing no. 39 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion before the Eighth Circuit. All other pending motions are denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party and the 8th Circuit)(JAB)
September 27, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 36 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting Brown's 34 Application and Affidavit in Support of Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Brown is relieved from paying the appellate filing fee at this time. Brown shall have until October 27, 2011, to file a motion for certificate of appealability and brief in support. In the event that Brown fails to file a motion and brief as set forth in this Memorandum and Order on Application and Affidavit in Support of Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, the court will deny the issuance of a certificate of appealability without further notice. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case with the following text: October 27, 2011: check for COA and separate brief and deny if none filed. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(MKR)
August 31, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 31 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - the Petitioner Terron Brown's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For a Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order on Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of HabeasCorpus. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(JAE)
August 3, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 11 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Upon initial review of the Petition (filing no. 1 ), the court preliminarily determines that the petitioners claims, as set forth in this memorandum and order, are potentially cognizable in federal court. The clerk of the cour t is directed to mail copies of this memorandum and order and the petition to respondents and the Attorney General for the State of Nebraska by regular first-class mail. By September 16, 2010, the respondent shall file a motion for summary judgment o r 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: September 16, 2010: deadline for the respondent to file state court records in support o f answer or motion for summary judgment. If the respondent elects to file a motion for summary judgment, the procedures set forth within the order shall be followed. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: October 18, 2010: check for the respondent to file answer and separate brief. The petitioners Motion to Appoint Counsel (filing no. 3 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadlines : ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 9/16/2010 deadline for the respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment). Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party and as directed)(MKR)
July 20, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 10 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The petitioners application to proceed in forma pauperis (filing no. 2 ) is denied; Terron Brown is granted until August 20, 2010, to pay the $5.00 filing fee. Terron Brown is warned that if the fee is not paid as require d, the court may dismiss this case without further notice; The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case with the following text: August 20, 2010: deadline for payment of $5.00 filing fee; and no further review of this case will take place until the filing fee is paid. Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 8/20/2010: deadline for payment of $5.00 filing fee. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)
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: Brown v. State of Nebraska
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Terron Brown
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 ]
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: State of Nebraska
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?