Campbell v. Britten

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: The clerk's office is directed to file the materials found at Filing Number 1 as a notice of appeal in 4:12CV3257, as of the date they were received by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, w hich was April 19, 2013. The docket text should reflect that this action was taken per my direction pursuant to this Memorandum and Order. The clerk's office is further directed to file in Case Number 4:12CV3257 the documents Mr. Campbell sub mitted with his May 24, 2013, letter. These are an Affidavit of Poverty (Filing No. 3-1), a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 3-2), a Motion to Proceed IFP (Filing No. 3-3), and a "Praecipe fo Bill of Exceptions and Transcript" ; (Filing No. 3-4). Finally, the clerk's office is directed to administratively close this case, 4:13CV3102. To avoid delay and confusion in the future, Mr. Campbell is directed to ensure that all materials sent to the court indicate in which case they should be filed, and clearly set forth the relief he seeks. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
HERBERT L. CAMPBELL,
Petitioner,
v.
FRED BRITTEN, et al,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13CV3102

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before me as Supervising Pro Se Judge. The clerk’s office
received a letter dated May 14, 2013, from the Clerk of the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals. (See Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 3.) Enclosed in the letter were documents
that Herbert Campbell attempted to file in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
were forwarded to this court by the Clerk for filing. I reviewed the documents and
determined that Mr. Campbell was challenging a state court judgment entered against
him. Accordingly, I directed the clerk’s office to file the documents as a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, which resulted in the opening of this case. I directed the
clerk’s office to file the Petition as of April 19, 2013, which was the date it was
received by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The court received a letter and numerous attachments from Mr. Campbell on
May 24, 2013. (See Filing No. 3.) In Mr. Campbell’s letter, he explained that he
intended for the documents he sent to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to serve as
a notice of appeal of an Order and Judgment entered against him in this court in Case
Number 4:12CV3257. In other words, he did not intend to file a new petition for writ
of habeas corpus. (See id. at CM/ECF pp. 1-2.) In light of this clarification offered
by Mr. Campbell,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1.
The clerk’s office is directed to file the materials found at Filing Number
1 as a notice of appeal in 4:12CV3257, as of the date they were received by the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which was April 19, 2013. The docket text should reflect
that this action was taken per my direction pursuant to this Memorandum and Order.
2.
The clerk’s office is further directed to file in Case Number 4:12CV3257
the documents Mr. Campbell submitted with his May 24, 2013, letter. These are an
Affidavit of Poverty (Filing No. 3-1), a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Filing
No. 3-2), a Motion to Proceed IFP (Filing No. 3-3), and a “Praecipe fo Bill of
Exceptions and Transcript” (Filing No. 3-4).
3.
Finally, the clerk’s office is directed to administratively close this case,
4:13CV3102.
4.
To avoid delay and confusion in the future, Mr. Campbell is directed to
ensure that all materials sent to the court indicate in which case they should be filed,
and clearly set forth the relief he seeks.
DATED this 3rd day of June, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Supervising Pro Se 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