Alhakemi v. State
United States District Court, D. Nebraska
November 1, 2018
ALI ALHAKEMI, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA, SCOTT R. FRAKES, Director, Nebraska Correctional Services, and MICHELL CAPPS, Warden, Nebraska State Penitentiary, Respondents.
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 ...