United States District Court, D. Nebraska
COTRELL T. KNIGHT, Petitioner,
ROBERT MADSEN, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge
matter is before the court on preliminary review of
Petitioner Cotrell T. Knight's Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1) brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. The purpose of this review is to determine
whether Petitioner's claims, when liberally construed,
are potentially cognizable in federal court. Condensed and
summarized for clarity, Petitioner's claim is:
CLAIM ONE: The defendant's counsel was ineffective
because the defendant was sentenced without counsel attending
the sentencing hearing or if counsel did attend the
sentencing hearing, then counsel performed inadequately to
the prejudice of the defendant.
court determines that these claims, when liberally construed,
are potentially cognizable in federal court. However, the
court cautions Petitioner 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.
THEREFORE ORDERED that:
initial review of the habeas corpus petition (Filing No. 1),
the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's
claims, as they are set forth in this Memorandum and Order,
are potentially cognizable in federal court.
September 10, 2018, 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: September 10, 2018: 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
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 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 motion and brief. In the
event that the designation of state court records is deemed
insufficient by Petitioner or Petitioner needs additional
records from the designation, 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.
D. No. 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 not submit other documents unless directed to do so by
E. No later than 30 days after Petitioner's brief is
filed, Respondent must file and serve a reply brief. In the
event that Respondent elects not to file a reply brief, he
should inform the court by filing a notice stating that he
will not file a reply brief and that the motion is therefore
fully submitted for decision.
F. If the motion for summary judgment is denied, Respondent
must file an answer, a designation and a brief that complies
with terms of this order. (See the following
paragraph.) The documents must be filed no later than 30 days
after the denial of the motion for summary judgment.
Respondent is warned that failure to file an answer,
a designation and a brief in a timely ...