Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Journey v. Nebraska Mental Health Board

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

March 14, 2019

RICKY G. JOURNEY, Petitioner,
v.
NEBRASKA MENTAL HEALTH BOARD, BUFFALO COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH BOARD, STEPHEN LOWE, MICHAEL LAWSON, RICHARD BEECHER, AARON BISHOP, KARI R. FISK, AGNES STAIRS, MARY PAINE, Doctors, JOHN H. MARSH, Judge, TROY KEITH, TAMMY JACKSON, ANTONIO HANIGAN, Doctor, TONY CRUZ, CATHY SHEAIR, DR. JEFF MELVIN, and JOHN KROLL, RN, Facility Operating Officer, Norfolk Regional Center, Respondents.

          ORDER

          RICHARD G. KOPF SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the court on preliminary review of Petitioner Ricky G. Journey'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 received ineffective assistance of defense counsel because counsel (a) failed to perfect an appeal from the adverse decision of the Buffalo County, Nebraska Mental Health Board regarding proceedings (following Petitioner's completion of his prison sentence) commenced under the Sex Offender Commitment Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-1201, et seq. (West); (b) failed to demand an open hearing where Petitioner's witnesses could attend; (c) in concert with the prosecutor, sought or allowed a second psychological evaluation without Petitioner's authorization; (d) in concert with the prosecutor, actively worked against Petitioner's interests.
CLAIM TWO: The Petitioner was denied due process of law because Petitioner was not afforded a fair and impartial hearing in accordance with the Nebraska statutes.[1]

         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 April 29, 2019, 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: April 29, 2019: deadline for Respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment.

         3. If Respondent elects to file a motion for summary judgment, the following procedures must be followed by Respondent and Petitioner:

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 the court.
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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.