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.

Davis v. Gage

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

January 8, 2015

JASON DAVIS, Petitioner,
v.
BRIAN GAGE, Warden, Tecumseh State Correctional Institute, and MIKE KENNEY, Director, Nebraska Department of Corrections, Respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LAURIE SMITH CAMP, District Judge.

Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Filing No. 1.) The court has conducted an initial review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to determine whether the claims made by Petitioner are, when liberally construed, potentially cognizable in federal court. Condensed and summarized for clarity, the claims asserted by Petitioner are:

Claim One: Petitioner was denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because his plea was not knowing and voluntary. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 5.)
Claim Two: Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because trial counsel coerced him into entering into a plea agreement ( id. at CM/ECF p. 5), and failed to argue that Petitioner was entitled to a three-day notice prior to the state district court's determination on whether he was a habitual criminal ( id. at CM/ECF pp. 9-10).
Claim Three: Petitioner was denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because the state district court failed to appoint a special prosecutor to represent the State of Nebraska. ( Id. at CM/ECF p. 7.)
Claim Four: Petitioner was denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because Petitioner did not receive a three-day notice prior to the state district court's determination on whether he was a habitual criminal. ( Id. at CM/ECF p. 8.)
Claim Five: Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because appellate counsel did not perfect Petitioner's direct appeal. ( Id. at CM/ECF pp. 8-9.)

Liberally construed, the court preliminarily decides that Petitioner's 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 to them or whether there are procedural bars that will prevent Petitioner from obtaining the relief sought. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Upon initial review of the habeas corpus petition (Filing No. 1), the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's claims, as set forth in this Memorandum and Order, are potentially cognizable in federal court.

2. The Clerk of the court is directed to mail copies of this Memorandum and Order and the petition to Respondents and the Nebraska Attorney General by regular first-class mail.

3. By February 23, 2015, Respondents shall 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: February 23, 2015: deadline for Respondents to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment.

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

A. The motion for summary judgment shall be accompanied by a separate brief, submitted at the time of ...

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.