The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph F. Bataillon United States District Judge
This matter is before the court on its own motion. On September 2, 2011, the court granted Petitioner's Motion for a Stay and Abeyance. (Filing No. 27.) In that Memorandum and Order, the court granted Petitioner until October 31, 2011, to pursue his state-court remedies. (Id.) The court also required that Petitioner file a status report no later than October 31, 2011, advising the court regarding whether he had done so. (Id.) As shown in the records of this court, Petitioner filed his "Verified Motion for Post Conviction Relief" in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska, on November 1, 2011. (Filing No. 31.)
On October 1, 2012, the court ordered Petitioner to file a status report no later than April 1, 2013, advising the court of the status of post-conviction proceedings in state court. (Filing No. 34.) On April 17, 2013, Petitioner informed the court that his post-conviction proceedings are still pending in the state district court. (Filing No. 35.) Petitioner also indicated that "it will be at least six months before he may be able to return to the federal Court." (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 2-3.) In light of Petitioner's status report, this matter remains stayed and the court will require a status report in six months.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. This matter remains stayed pending Petitioner's pursuit of his state-court remedies.
2. Petitioner must file another status report advising the court of the status of the separate action in state court no later than October 23, 2013.
3. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: October 23, 2013: deadline for Petitioner to file written status report regarding state-court action.
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...