Forney v. Daily Times Newspaper et al

Filing 57

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 56 Motion to Reopen Case. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

Forney v. Daily Times Newspaper et al

Doc. 57

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA DAVID C. FORNEY, Plaintiff, v. HINEMAN, Govenor, and KEITH COUNTY, NEBRASKA, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:09CV3033

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen. (Filing No. 56.) In his Motion, Plaintiff asks the court to reopen this case so that he may pursue his habeas corpus claims. (Id.) For the reasons discussed below Plaintiff's Motion is denied. On December 2, 2009, the court dismissed this matter without prejudice and entered Judgment against Plaintiff. (Filing Nos. 53 and 54.) In its December 2, 2009, Memorandum and Order, the court concluded that some of Plaintiff's claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). (Filing No. 53 at CM/ECF p. 3.) The court dismissed those claims without prejudice to reassertion in a habeas corpus or similar proceeding. (Id.) As the court previously informed Plaintiff, claims relating to the validity of an individual's incarceration may not be brought in a civil rights case, regardless of the relief sought. (Filing No. 53 at CM/ECF p. 3.) See also Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87. This matter is a civil rights case that has been closed for almost a year. If Plaintiff desires to file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, he must file it as a separate case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen (filing no. 56) is denied.

Dockets.Justia.com

DATED this 9th day of November, 2010. BY THE COURT: Richard G. Kopf United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court. 2