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.

Pardee v. Frakes

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

March 30, 2015

ROBERT R. PARDEE, Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT FRAKES, Director, Neb. Dept. C.S., Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LYLE E. STROM, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on respondent's unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 19). Respondent argues all of petitioner Robert Pardee's ("Pardee") habeas corpus claims are procedurally defaulted. The Court agrees.

I. BACKGROUND

The State of Nebraska ("State") charged Pardee by information in the District Court of Seward County, Nebraska ("state district court") with unlawful racketeering activity. (Filing No. 20-1 at CM/ECF pp. 1, 5.) Pardee pled no contest to the charge on April 9, 2013. ( Id. at CM/ECF p. 5.) On June 10, 2013, the state district court sentenced Pardee to two to three years imprisonment. ( Id. at CM/ECF p. 4.) Pardee did not appeal his conviction and sentence or file a postconviction action.

Pardee filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1) in this Court on June 9, 2014. His claims are summarized in the Court's order on initial review dated October 10, 2014. ( See Filing No. 15 at CM/ECF pp. 1-2.) Respondent filed the Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 19) at issue here on November 14, 2014. Pardee did not oppose the motion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

As set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254:

(b)(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that -
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or
(B)(I) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or
(ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

The United States Supreme Court has explained the habeas exhaustion requirement as follows:

Because the exhaustion doctrine is designed to give the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims before those claims are presented to the federal courts... state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by ...

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.