Dubray v. Hansen
| Dominick Dubray |
| Brad Hansen |
| Nebraska Attorney General |
| 8:2017cv00021 |
| January 23, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| 8 Omaha Office |
| Pro Se Docket |
| Richard G. Kopf |
| Habeas Corpus: General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2242 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus |
| 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
22
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is denied and dismissed with prejudice. No certificate of appealability has been or will be issued. A separate judgment will be entered. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER that Petitioner's second motion to appoint counsel (filing no. 19 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (CS)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (filing no. 16 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)
|
|
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Upon initial review of the Petition (Filing No. 1 ), the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's claims, as limited above, are potentially cognizable in federal court. The other claims are dismissed with prejudi ce. By March 24, 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 24, 201 7: deadline for Respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment. If Respondent elects to file a motion for summary judgment, the following procedures must be followed by Respondent and Petitioner. If Respo ndent elects to file an answer, the following procedures must be followed by Respondent and Petitioner. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: March 27, 2017: check for Re spondent's answer and separate brief. No discovery shall be undertaken without leave of the court. See Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER - Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 4 ) is granted. 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)(GJG)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER - Petitioner is directed to submit the $5.00 fee to the clerk's office or submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days. Failure to take either action will result in dismissal of this matter without further notice. T he 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: March 2, 2017: Check for MIFP or payment. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party with form as directed)(GJG)
|
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.
