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 Nehls' 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: The Petitioner was and is being denied due process
of law by his confinement at the Norfolk Regional Center
because he did not and does not pose a risk to offend
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.
court has added the Buffalo County, Nebraska Mental Health
Board as a Respondent. The court has done so because the
court is uncertain as to the proper Respondent or
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 22, 2019, Respondents 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 22, 2019: deadline for
Respondents to file state court records in support of answer
or motion for summary judgment.
Respondents elect to file a motion for summary judgment, the
following procedures must be followed by Respondents 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
“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
Respondents' brief must be served on Petitioner
except that Respondents are only required to provide
Petitioner with a copy of the specific pages of the record
that are cited in Respondents' 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 ...