Freemont v. State of Nebraska et al
| Rufus Blaine Freemont |
| Douglas County and State of Nebraska |
| Nebraska Attorney General |
| 8:2018cv00200 |
| May 7, 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
23
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the habeas corpus petition (filing no. 1 ) is denied and 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
18
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Petitioner's motion to expand the record and for additional state court records (filing no. 16 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time (filing no. 17 ) i s granted. Petitioner shall have until February 8, 2019, to file his brief in response to Respondent's Answer and Brief in Support of Answer. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: February 8, 2019: check for Petitioner's brief in response. Ordered by Chief Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(LAC)
|
|
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (filing no. 5 ) is denied. Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (filing no. 8 ) is denied without prejudice to reassertion. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)
|
|
Filing
4
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 claims, as they are set forth in this Memorandum and Order, are potenti ally cognizable in federal court. By October 15, 2018, Respondents 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 Respondents 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 followi ng text: November 13, 2018: check for Respondents' 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 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: June 7, 2018: Check for MIFP or payment. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party and as directed)(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.
