Hillard v. Bakewell et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER- Respondents shall have 30 days to provide additional briefing and state-court records on the issue of whether Hillard has completed the necessary exhaustion of state court remedies. No later than 30 days after the filing of R espondents brief, Hillard shall file and serve a reply brief. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadlines: ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 7/16/2013: Deadline for the parties to submit additional briefing) Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT STACEY HILLARD,
DENNIS BAKEWELL, Warden, and
NELS SORENSON, Sheriff of
Jefferson County, NE,
CASE NO. 4:12CV3186
This matter is before the court on its own motion. Robert Hillard filed a Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus on August 31, 2012, in which he essentially alleges that the State of
Nebraska has improperly calculated his release date in violation of his federal due process
rights. (Filing No. 1.) Respondents argue in their Motion for Summary Judgment that the
State of Nebraska has properly calculated Hillard’s release date, and that he is not being held
beyond it. (Filing No. 14.) In support of their motion, they filed evidence reflecting, among
other things, the calculation of the good time Hillard has lost through the Department of
Correctional Services’s disciplinary system. (See generally Filing No. 15.) In addition,
Respondents set forth that Hillard’s release date is currently set for August 19, 2013. (Filing
No. 14 at CM/ECF p. 4.)
Respondents’ arguments in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment are well
taken. However, the court is reluctant to address whether the State of Nebraska’s calculation
of Hillard’s release date denies Hillard due process of law where it appears from the record
that Hillard has not presented the substance of this claim to Nebraska’s state courts. Before
filing a federal habeas petition, a state inmate must first “fairly present” the substance of his
or her federal habeas claims to the appropriate state courts. Murphy v. King, 652 F.3d 845,
848-49 (8th Cir. 2011), (citing Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004)). The fairpresentment requirement exists so that the respective state has the “‘opportunity to pass upon
and correct’ alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Murphy, 652 F.3d at 849,
(quoting Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995)).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Respondents shall have 30 days to provide additional briefing and state-court
records on the issue of whether Hillard has completed the necessary exhaustion
of state court remedies;
No later than 30 days after the filing of Respondents’ brief, Hillard shall file and
serve a reply brief; and
The clerk’s office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this
matter using the following text: July 16, 2013: Deadline for the parties to submit
DATED this 16th day of May, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?