Patterson v. Houston

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The pending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is deemed insufficient and the court will not act upon it. On or before September 29, 2009, Petitioner must submit a signed Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Cl erk of the court is directed to send Petitioner a Form AO241 packet, Petition for Relief From a Conviction or Sentence By a Person in State Custody. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case with the following text: September 29, 2009: deadline for Petitioner to submit Amended Petition. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Form and copy mailed to pro se party) (JAE)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA FREDERICK P. PATTERSON, Petitioner, v. ROBERT HOUSTON, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:09CV3139

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on July 6, 2009. (Filing No. 1). The Petition challenges multiple convictions on due process and equal protection grounds. Specifically, Petitioner alleges there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and also asserts "all of the claims [he raised] in the state courts on direct appeal and [in his Motion for Post-Conviction Relief]." (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 3-4.) Petitioner does not specify the claims he raised in the state courts; rather, for a description of these claims, he refers the court to paragraphs four and five of his Petition, a state court opinion, and the 39 pages of attachments he filed with his Petition. Id. The court must conduct an initial review of the Petition to determine whether the claims made by Petitioner are, when liberally construed, potentially cognizable in federal court. The Petition must "substantially follow either the form appended to [the] rules, or a form prescribed by a local district-court rule." See Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The pending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing no. 1) is deemed insufficient and the court will not act upon it. Petitioner did not use a Form AO 241, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, and his Petition does not clearly indicate the grounds alleged. If Petitioner would like the court to consider the claims he raised in the state courts, Petitioner must specify these grounds and the facts supporting each ground. Thus, on its own motion, the court will grant

Petitioner 30 days to amend his Petition using the Form AO 241. Failure to adequately comply with this order may result in dismissal of the Petition without further notice. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. The pending Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing no. 1) is deemed insufficient and the court will not act upon it. 2. On or before September 29, 2009, Petitioner must submit a signed Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. In the Amended Petition, Petitioner must specify the grounds for relief, the facts supporting each ground, and the relief requested. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the Petition without further notice. 3. The Clerk of the court is directed to send Petitioner a Form AO241 packet, Petition for Relief From a Conviction or Sentence By a Person in State Custody. 4. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case with the following text: September 29, 2009: deadline for Petitioner to submit Amended Petition. September 1, 2009. BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Chief 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 2 directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.