United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the court on preliminary review of
Petitioner Casterline's Amended Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 9) 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 claims are:
Claim One: Petitioner was denied Due Process of Law when no
competency hearing was held.
Claim Two: Defense counsel was Constitutionally ineffective
for failing to pursue a competency hearing.
Claim Three: Defense counsel was Constitutionally ineffective
for failing to seek suppression of the knife found in
Petitioner's vehicle at the time of arrest.
Claim Four: Defense counsel was Constitutionally ineffective
for failing to seek suppression of statements that Petitioner
made to police.
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. 9),
the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's
claims, as they are set forth in this Memorandum and Order,
are potentially cognizable in federal court.
November 5, 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: November 5, 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 ...