Jacob v. Houston

Filing 149

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 148 Motion to Extend. Respondent will have until January 29, 2015, to file a brief in support of an answer. The court requests that counsel for Respondent strictly abide by the court's progression orders in the future. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
STEVEN M. JACOB,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT HOUSTON,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:10CV3073

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Respondent’s Motion to Extend (Filing No. 148). On
January 9, 2015, the court granted Respondent’s previous Motion to Extend, giving Respondent
until January 13, 2015, in which to file a brief in support of his answer. Respondent did not file
a brief on January 13. Instead, Respondent filed another motion to extend time on January 26.
The court realizes that, as bureau chief in the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office (see
Filing No. 145 at CM/ECF p. 1), counsel for Respondent is very busy. However, the court must
treat pro se litigants with the same respect and consideration as any other plaintiff or petitioner,
as should the State. The court notes counsel for Respondent has failed to meet other deadlines
in this case and in other cases before this court.
IT IS ORDERED: Respondent’s Motion to Extend is granted. Respondent will have
until January 29, 2015, to file a brief in support of an answer. The court requests that counsel
for Respondent strictly abide by the court’s progression orders in the future.
DATED this 26th day of January, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior 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.