Erpelding v. Frakes
Petitioner: Shawn R. Erpelding
Respondent: Scott Frakes
Interested Party: Nebraska Attorney General
Case Number: 8:2020cv00167
Filed: April 30, 2020
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Presiding Judge: Pro Se Docket
Referring Judge: Richard G Kopf
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 8, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 22, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ORDER - that the motion for stay and abeyance (Filing no. #2 ) is denied. Mr. Erpelding is advised that he should respond to the motion for summary judgment (Filing no. #9 ) as set forth in the progression order (Filing no. #4 ). Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)
June 18, 2020 Filing 12 RESPONSE regarding Order,, Terminate Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings,, Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings, 8 , MOTION to Stay #2 , Order, Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings #5 by Attorney Erin E. Tangeman on behalf of Respondent Scott Frakes.(Tangeman, Erin)
June 18, 2020 Filing 11 BRIEF in support of MOTION for Summary Judgment #9 by Attorney Erin E. Tangeman on behalf of Respondent Scott Frakes.(Tangeman, Erin)
June 18, 2020 Filing 10 STATE COURT RECORDS regarding: MOTION for Summary Judgment #9 by Attorney Erin E. Tangeman on behalf of Petitioner Shawn R. Erpelding. (Attachments: #1 Docket Sheet Erpelding I, #2 Docket Sheet Erpelding II, #3 Docket Sheet Erpelding III, #4 Transcript Erpelding I, #5 Transcript Erpelding II, #6 Transcript Erpedling III)(Tangeman, Erin)
June 18, 2020 Filing 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Attorney Erin E. Tangeman on behalf of Respondent Scott Frakes.(Tangeman, Erin)
May 14, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 8 TEXT ORDER - The Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time, Filing no. #7 , is granted. The Respondent's Response to Filing no. #2 shall be filed on or before June 18, 2020. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)
May 13, 2020 Filing 7 MOTION to Extend Response to filing no. 2 MOTION to Stay #2 , Order, Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings #5 by Attorney Erin E. Tangeman on behalf of Respondent Scott Frakes.(Tangeman, Erin)
May 13, 2020 Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Attorney Erin E. Tangeman on behalf of Respondent Scott Frakes (Tangeman, Erin)
May 5, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER - that Respondent shall respond to Petitioner's Motion for Stay and Abeyance of 28 U.S.C. 2254 Proceedings, Filing no. #2 , on or before May 15, 2020. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)
May 4, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 4 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - 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 potentially cognizable in federal court. By June 18, 2020, 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: June 18, 2020: deadline for Respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment. Respondent is warned that failure to file an answer, a designation and a brief in a timely fashion may result in the imposition of sanctions, including Petitioner's release. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: July 20, 2020: 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)(LKO)
April 30, 2020 Filing 3 NOTICE by Clerk acknowledging receipt of complaint filed by a pro se party. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)
April 30, 2020 Filing 2 MOTION for Stay and Abeyance of 28 U.S.C. 2254 Proceedings on behalf of Petitioner Shawn R. Erpelding. (LKO)
April 30, 2020 Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the amount of $5 filed on behalf of pro se petitioner Shawn R. Erpelding. (LKO)
April 30, 2020 TEXT ENTRY THAT FILING fee paid on behalf of Shawn Erpelding on 4/30/20. Receipt number 8056055, in the amount of $5. (LKO)

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: Erpelding v. Frakes
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Scott Frakes
Represented By: Erin E. Tangeman
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: Shawn R. Erpelding
Represented By: Erin E. Tangeman
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 ]

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?