Engstrom v. Frakes - FILE ALL PLEADINGS IN CASES 8:17CV166 and 8:17CV327
Michael Engstrom |
Scott R. Frakes |
Nebraska Attorney General |
8:2017cv00327 |
September 7, 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 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 2 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (filing no. 1 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. A separate judgment will be issued. However, no certificate of appealability will be issued. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC) |
Filing 1 ORDER that since case number 8:17CV166 attacks two separate convictions in two separate courts, but only one petition was filed, the Clerk shall open a new case and file this order in the new civil case as well as in 8:17CV166. It is unnecessary to copy any of the filings from 8:17CV166 to the new case. The Court will take judicial notice of all such filings as of today's date for purposes of resolving the new case. All subsequent filings shall be placed in both cases. No separate filing fee shall be collected. The undersigned will consider the new case to have been filed on May 15, 2017, for purposes of the statute of limitations. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC) |
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.