Rice v. Hansen
Petitioner: Mark Rice
Respondent: Brad Hansen
Interested Party: Nebraska Attorney General
Case Number: 8:2017cv00219
Filed: June 23, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: 8 Omaha Office
Presiding Judge: Pro Se Docket
Presiding Judge: Richard G. Kopf
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254 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
September 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 13 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The petition for writ of habeas corpus (filing no. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. No certificate of appealability has been or will be issued. A separate judgment will be filed. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (ADB)
July 11, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER - that the Petitioner's objection to memorandum and order (filing no. 5 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
July 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Upon initial review of the Petition (Filing No. 1 ), the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's claims are potentially cognizable in federal court. By August 21, 2017, Respondent must file a motion for summary j udgment 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: August 21, 2017: 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: September 18, 2017: check for Respondent's answer and separate brief. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (KLF)
June 26, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER that 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. 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: July 24, 2017: Check for MIFP or payment. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party with form)(ADB)
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: Rice v. Hansen
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Brad Hansen
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: Douglas J. Peterson
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: Mark Rice
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?