Jenkins v. Houston

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding the Petitioner's 21 MOTION for Copies filed by Keylan Jenkins. The clerks office is directed to term the motion event at Filing Number 21 . The clerks office is further directed to mail to Petitioner a copy of the Docket Sheet in this case. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copies mailed as directed with docket sheet)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KEYLAN JENKINS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL L. KENNEY,
Respondent.

4:13CV3138

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on correspondence from Petitioner dated June 13,
2014. Petitioner states in this correspondence that his “appeal was suppose[d] to be turned
in by May 2, 2014,” but he has been in segregation and is unsure if it was filed. (Filing No.
21.)
Petitioner is mistaken. No judgment has been entered in this case and the filing of
any appeal would be premature. Rather, Petitioner’s responsive brief was due May 2, 2014.
(See text-only order dated April 16, 2014 (“Petitioner must submit his brief in response by
May 2, 2014, in order for it to be considered by the court.”).) Petitioner did not file his brief
in response by May 2, 2014. (See Docket Sheet.) This matter is fully submitted for
disposition, and the court will rule on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in its normal
course of business.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: The clerks office is directed to term the motion
event at Filing Number 21. The clerk’s office is further directed to mail to Petitioner a copy
of the Docket Sheet in this case.
DATED this 16th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
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.