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.

Haynes v. Frakes

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

June 2, 2016

JAMAR HAYNES, Petitioner,
v.
SCOTT FRAKES, Director, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge.

         The 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 four claims.

         Condensed and summarized for clarity, the claims asserted by Petitioner are:

Claim One: Petitioner’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated because (1) the warrant authorizing the search of Petitioner’s vehicle was not supported by probable cause and (2) the affidavit offered in support of the issuance of the search warrant lacked specificity and omitted material facts.
Claim Two: There was insufficient evidence to convict Petitioner on Counts II, III, and V of the Amended Information.
Claim Three: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment because counsel failed to (1) file a motion to quash; (2) inform Petitioner of exculpatory evidence; (3) adequately prepare for the suppression hearing and trial; (4) investigate, locate, and subpoena LPD Captain Sundermeier, Michelle Haynes, and Benjamin Waldbaum; (5) challenge the admissibility of a .45 caliber cartridge at the suppression hearing and trial; (6) investigate the time-stamp of a video; (7) object or request a mistrial based on the prosecutor’s presentation of false testimony; and (8) file a motion to dismiss based on vindictive prosecution.
Claim Four: Petitioner was vindictively prosecuted and the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by knowingly presenting false testimony.

         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 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 Petition (Filing No. 1), the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner’s claims are potentially cognizable in federal court.

         2. By July 18, 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 18, 2016: deadline for Respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment.

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

A. The motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by a separate brief, submitted at the time the motion is filed.
B. The 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 ...

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.