Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Addleman v. Rine-Sabatka

United States District Court, Eighth Circuit

August 16, 2013

LAWRENCE ADDLEMAN, Petitioner,
v.
DIANE RINE-SABATKA, Warden, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH F. BATAILLON, District Judge.

The court has conducted an initial review of the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 7) to determine whether Petitioner's claims are, when liberally construed, potentially cognizable in federal court. Condensed and summarized, Petitioner has raised four claims.

Claim One: Petitioner was denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because investigators did not question Petitioner's children and parents.
Claim Two: Petitioner was denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because his Miranda rights were not explained to him.
Claim Three: Petitioner was denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because no chemical analysis was performed on the evidence.
Claim Four: Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment because his trial counsel "told [him] what to say."

Liberally construed, the court preliminarily decides that Petitioner's four claims are potentially cognizable in federal court. However, the court cautions that no determination has been made regarding the merits of these claims or any defenses thereto or whether there are procedural bars that will prevent Petitioner from obtaining the relief sought.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Upon initial review of the Amended Petition (Filing No. 7), the court preliminarily determines that Claims One, Two, Three, and Four, as set forth in this Memorandum and Order, are potentially cognizable in federal court.

2. The clerk's office is directed to mail copies of this Memorandum and Order and the Amended Petition to Respondents and the Nebraska Attorney General by regular first-class mail.

3. By September 30, 2013, Respondent shall file a motion for summary judgment or state court records in support of an answer. The clerk's office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: September 30, 2013: deadline for Respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment.

4. If Respondent elects to file a motion for summary judgment, the following procedures shall be followed by Respondent and Petitioner:

A. The motion for summary judgment shall be accompanied by a separate brief, submitted at the time of the filing of the motion.
B. The motion for summary judgment shall be supported by such state court records as are necessary to support the motion. Those records shall be contained in a separate filing entitled: "Designation of State ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.