Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Jerry Hansen v. Robert Houston
May 14, 2013
ROBERT HOUSTON, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Laurie Smith Camp Chief United States District Judge
This matter is before the court on its own motion. On December 5, 2012, the court dismissed Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") without prejudice and entered Judgment against him because he failed to exhaust state court remedies before filing his Petition. (Filing Nos. 24 and 25.) On December 12, 2012, Petitioner sought relief from the court's Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b)(6). (Filing No. 26.) In his Motion, Petitioner argued that he exhausted his state court remedies before the court entered its December 5, 2012, Memorandum and Order and Judgment. (Filing Nos. 26 and 28.) However, Petitioner presented no authenticated state court records supporting his argument. (Id.) The court denied Petitioner's Motion to Reopen, but gave him the opportunity to submit an amended petition that only presented exhausted claims. (Filing No. 28.) In doing so, the court instructed Petitioner to accompany any amended petition with a motion to reopen that clearly identified which claims he exhausted in state court. (Id.)
On February 19, 2013, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition. (Filing No. 29.) Petitioner did not include a motion to reopen, as the court instructed. (See Docket Sheet.) In his Amended Petition, Petitioner states that he "cannot obtain a certified copy of the [state court decisions] due to poverty, old age limitations, and [because he] just plain doesn't know how to get certified copies and neither does anybody else in prison." (Filing No. 29.) Again, the record before the court shows that Petitioner failed to subject his federal habeas claims, namely that he was denied due process because he was not "counseled of his progress or prospects of future parole," to one complete round of state court review before filing his Petition.*fn1 (Filing No. 24; Filing No. 29 at CM/ECF p. 3; Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 2.) Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the court will not act upon Petitioner's Amended Petition and his case remains dismissed in accordance with the court's December 5, 2012, Memorandum and Order and Judgment.
* 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 ...
Buy This Entire Record For