McCain v. Frakes
| Eric McCain |
| Scott R. Frakes |
| Nebraska Attorney General |
| 8:2018cv00190 |
| April 27, 2018 |
| 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) |
| 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 habeas corpus petition (filing no. 1 ) is denied and the case is dismissed with prejudice. No certificate of appealability has been or will be issued. Judgment will be issued by separate document. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(LAC)
|
|
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time (filing no. 17 ) is granted. Petitioner shall have until February 12, 2019, to file a brief in response to Respondent's Answer and Brief in Support. Petitioner' s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (filing no. 18 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: February 12, 2019: check for Petitioner's brief in response to Respondent's answer and brief. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(LAC)
|
|
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Respondent's Motion to Seal Records (filing no. 11 ) is granted. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)
|
|
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (filing no. 7 ) is denied as moot. Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (filing no. 6 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)
|
|
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Upon initial review of the habeas corpus petition (filing no. 1 ), the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's claim, as it is set forth in this Memorandum and Order, is potentia lly cognizable in federal court. By October 15, 2018, 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: October 15, 2018: 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 foll owing text: November 13, 2018: check for Respondent'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)(TCL)
|
|
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner is directed to submit the $5.00 fee to the clerks 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 not ice. 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: May 29, 2018: Check for MIFP or payment. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)
|
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.
