United States District Court, D. Nebraska
SHANTELLE L. EASON, Petitioner,
SCOTT FRAKES, Director, NE Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.
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. Petitioner has made
two through five, when properly understood, assert
Petitioner's “actual innocence” despite her
pleas of guilty or no-contention. Such claims are not
standalone federal claims, but rather a means of avoiding
procedural default. Thus, except as to the issue of
procedural default and closely related matters, these claims
are dismissed with prejudice.
Petitioner asserts that her belated filing of the pending
petition was occasioned by the alleged fact that she was in
the prison infirmary due to a medical or mental problem. She
may also assert that her state post-conviction motion was
also adversely impacted by such treatment.
will need to address both of the foregoing matters even
though they are not substantive claims. The foregoing
noted, one claim requires a response. Condensed and
summarized for clarity, that claim is:
Claim One: Trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of
counsel because: (a) he failed to obtain an order for a dual
diagnosis evaluation of Petitioner's mental, emotional or
medical condition, and (b) he failed to file a direct appeal
despite Petitioner's request to lodge such an appeal.
construed, the court preliminarily decides that
Petitioner's claim as stated is potentially cognizable in
federal court. However, the court cautions that no
determination has been made regarding the merits of this
claim or any defenses thereto or whether there are procedural
bars that will prevent Petitioner from obtaining the relief
initial review of the Petition (Filing No. 1), the court
preliminarily determines that Petitioner's claim one is
potentially cognizable in federal court.
Claims two through five are dismissed with prejudice.
May 22, 2017, 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: May 22, 2017: 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.” C. 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 ...