United States District Court, D. Nebraska
DARREL G. MEYER, Petitioner,
BRAD HANSEN, Tecumseh State Corr. Institution, and SCOTT FRAKES, Director NDCS, Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge
court has conducted an initial review of the Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1) to determine
whether the claims made by Petitioner are, when liberally
construed, potentially cognizable in federal court. It
appears Petitioner has made two claims.
and summarized for clarity, the claims asserted by Petitioner
Claim One: Petitioner was denied due process of law because
the sentencing judge was not impartial as reflected in the
judge’s comments at sentencing.
Claim Two: Trial and appellate counsel (who were the same)
was ineffective because counsel did not object to the conduct
of the sentencing judge and raise the issue of the
judge’s impartiality on appeal.
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 thereto or whether there are
procedural bars that will prevent Petitioner from obtaining
the relief sought.
THEREFORE ORDERED that:
initial review of the Petition (Filing No. 1), the
court preliminarily determines that Petitioner’s claims
are potentially cognizable in federal court.
July 1, 2016, Respondent must 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:
July 1, 2016: deadline for Respondent to file state court
records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment.
Respondent elects to file a motion for summary judgment, the
following procedures must be followed by Respondent and
motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by a separate
brief, submitted at the time the motion is filed.
motion for summary judgment must be supported by any state
court records that are necessary to support the motion. Those
records must be contained in a separate filing entitled:
“Designation of State Court Records in Support of
Motion for Summary Judgment.”
Copies of the motion for summary judgment, the designation,
including state court records, and Respondent’s brief
must be served on Petitioner except that Respondent
is only required to provide Petitioner with a copy of the
specific pages of the record that are cited in
Respondent’s brief. In the event that the designation
of state court records is deemed insufficient by Petitioner,
Petitioner may file a motion with the court requesting
additional documents. Such motion must set forth the
documents requested and the reasons the documents are
relevant to the cognizable claims.
later than 30 days following the filing of the motion for
summary judgment, Petitioner must file and serve a brief in
opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Petitioner may