Alhakemi v. State

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the court on preliminary review of Petitioner Alhakemi'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 claims are:

Claim One: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for one or more of the reasons set forth in the petition at CM/ECF pp. 7-10.

Claim Two: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel for one or more of the reasons set forth in the petition at CM/ECF pp. 10-13.

Claim Three: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel for one or more of the reasons set forth in the petition at CM/ECF pp. 13-18.

Claim Four: Petitioner was denied due process of law when the trial court denied a continuance motion.

Claim Five: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel for one or more of the reasons set forth in the petition at CM/ECF pp. 19-21.

Claim Six: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel for one or more of the reasons set forth in the petition at CM/ECF pp. 22-25.

Claim Seven: Petitioner was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel for one or more of the reasons set forth in the petition at CM/ECF pp. 26-28.

         The 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.

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. Upon 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.

2. By December 17, 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:

         December 17, 2018: deadline for Respondent to file state court records in support of answer ...