Jacob v. Houston

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Respondent's Motion for Enlargement of Time (filing no. 51 ) is granted. Petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend (filing no. 50 ) is denied. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: Check for initial brief on May 4, 2011. ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 5/4/2011.) Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

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 for Enlargement of
Time. (Filing No. 51.) Also pending is Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend.
(Filing No. 50.) The court will address each motion in turn.
I. Motion for Enlargement of Time
On April 4, 2011, Respondent filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time. (Filing
No. 51.) In his Motion, Respondent seeks to enlarge the time he was provided to file
his initial brief until May 4, 2011. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 1.) Respondent has listed
numerous reasons for his request, including that Petitioner has been pursuing
simultaneous state and federal post-conviction proceedings, which complicated
Respondent’s efforts to prepare the voluminous state court records. (Id.) In addition,
Respondent’s counsel was out of the country for 10 days in March and has been
seeking health treatment for a back injury. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.) For good cause
shown, Respondent’s Motion for Enlargement of Time is granted. However, no
further extensions of time will be granted.
II. Motion to Alter or Amend
In Petitioner’s Motion, Petitioner asks the court to alter or amend it’s March
23, 2011, Memorandum and Order. (Filing No. 50.) More specifically, Petitioner

argues that the court’s decision to deny his “right to interlocutory appeal” is
“mistaken as a matter of law.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 1.) On April 19, 2011, the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on interlocutory appeal because it lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner’s
appeal. (Filing No. 52.) Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend is moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Respondent’s Motion for Enlargement of Time (filing no. 51) is granted.

2.

Petitioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend (filing no. 50) is denied.

3.
The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline in this case using the following text: Check for initial brief on May 4, 2011.
DATED this 25th day of April, 2011.
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
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2