Bronson v. Britten
Petitioner: Clyde Wayne Bronson
Respondent: Fred Britten
Interested Party: Nebraska Attorney General
Case Number: 8:2010cv00442
Filed: November 26, 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
June 6, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 15 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - The respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (filing no. 8 ) is granted. The petitioner Clyde Wayne Bronson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing no. 1 ) is denied in all respects and this action is dismissed with prejudice. All other pending motions are denied. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with thisMemorandum and Order. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(GJG)
December 29, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 6 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Upon initial review of the Petition (filing no. 1 ), the court preliminarily determines that Bronson'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 Petition to the respondent and the Nebraska Attorney General by regular first-class mail. By February 3, 2011, the respondent shall file a motion for summary judgment or state court rec ords 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: February 3, 2011: deadline for the respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment. If the respondent elects to file an answer, the procedures as set out shall be followed by the respondent and Bronson. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: March 7, 2011: check for the respondent to file answer and separate brief. No discovery shall be undertaken without leave of the court. Bronson's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (filing no. 4 ) is denied as moot because Bronson paid the filing fee on December 7, 2010. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party and as directed)(GJG)
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: Bronson v. Britten
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Fred Britten
Represented By: Stacy M. Foust
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: Clyde Wayne Bronson
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 ]

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?