Evans v. Shortridge

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 1) Upon initial review of the Petition 1 , the court preliminarily determines that Petitioners claim is potentially cognizable in federal court. 2. The Clerk of the court is directed to mail copies of this Memorandum and Order and the Petition to Respondents and the Nebraska Attorney General by regular first-class mail. 3. By December 19, 2009, Respondent shall file a motion for summary judgment or state court records in support of an answer. The Clerk of the court is dir ected to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: December 19, 2009: deadline for Respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of the court is directed to s et a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: January 18, 2010:check for respondent to file answer and separate brief. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party, Respondents and Ne. Attorney General)(PCV, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA JOEL R. EVANS, Petitioner, v. KAREN SHORTRIDGE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8:09CV340

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on initial review of Joel Evans' ("Evans") Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Filing No. 1.) This is Evans' third petition relating to his four October 17, 1980, robbery convictions. See Evans v. Clarke, 4:87CV279 (D. Neb) and Evans v. Martin et al., No. 4:94CV3011 (D. Neb.). The court has reviewed Evans' Petition (filing no. 1) to determine whether the claim made by him is, when liberally construed, potentially cognizable in federal court. However, the court cautions that it made no determination regarding whether Evans' Petition is successive. Petitioner has made one claim. Condensed and summarized for clarity, the claim1 asserted by Petitioner is: Evans was denied his right to due process and equal protection of the laws because the prosecution lost, altered, and destroyed various trial exhibits and sentencing documents that were necessary for briefing and

This claim includes the claims set forth in the Petition as Grounds One, Two, and Three. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 22-42.)

1

argument before the Nebraska Supreme Court on Evans' reinstated direct appeal.2 Liberally construed, the court preliminarily decides that Evans' claim is potentially cognizable in federal court. However, the court cautions that no determination has been made regarding the merits of this claim or any defenses thereto or whether there are procedural bars that will prevent Petitioner from obtaining the relief sought. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Upon initial review of the Petition (filing no. 1), the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's claim is potentially cognizable in federal court. 2. The Clerk of the court is directed to mail copies of this Memorandum and Order and the Petition to Respondents and the Nebraska Attorney General by regular first-class mail. 3. By December 19, 2009, Respondent shall file a motion for summary judgment or state court records in support of an answer. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: December 19, 2009: deadline for Respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment.

At the direction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, this court ordered that Evans' May 5, 1987, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be granted unless the Nebraska Supreme Court reinstated Evans' direct appeal and appointed counsel to brief for him certain claims. (See Evans v. Clarke, 4:87CV279 (D. Neb).) 2

2

4. If Respondent elects to file a motion for summary judgment, the following procedures shall be followed by Respondent and Petitioner: A. B. The motion for summary judgment shall be accompanied by a separate brief, submitted at the time of the filing of the motion. The motion for summary judgment shall be supported by such state court records as are necessary to support the motion. Those records shall be contained in a separate filing entitled: "Designation of State Court Records in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment." Copies of the motion for summary judgment, the designation, including state court records, and Respondent's brief shall be served upon Petitioner except that Respondent is only required to provide Petitioner with a copy of the specific pages of the record which are cited in the Respondent's brief. In the event that the designation of state court records is deemed insufficient by Petitioner, Petitioner may file a motion with the court requesting additional documents. Such motion shall set forth the documents requested and the reasons the documents are relevant to the cognizable claims. No later than 30 days following the filing of the motion for summary judgment, Petitioner shall file and serve a brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Petitioner shall submit no other documents unless directed to do so by the court.

C.

D.

3

E.

No later than 30 days after the filing of Petitioner's brief, Respondent shall file and serve a reply brief. In the event that the Respondent elects not to file a reply brief, he should inform the court by filing a notice stating that he will not file a reply brief and that the motion is therefore fully submitted for decision. If the motion for summary judgment is denied, Respondent shall file an answer, a designation and a brief that complies with terms of this order. (See the following paragraph.) The documents shall be filed no later than 30 days after the denial of the motion for summary judgment. Respondent is warned that the failure to file an answer, a designation and a brief in a timely fashion may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the release of the petitioner.

F.

5. If Respondent elects to file an answer, the following procedures shall be followed by Respondent and Petitioner: A. By December 19, 2009, Respondent shall file all state court records which are relevant to the cognizable claims. See, e.g., Rule 5(c)-(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Those records shall be contained in a separate filing entitled: "Designation of State Court Records In Support of Answer." No later than 30 days after the filing of the relevant state court records, Respondent shall file an answer. The answer shall be accompanied by a separate brief, submitted at the time of the 4

B.

filing of the answer. Both the answer and brief shall address all matters germane to the case including, but not limited to, the merits of Petitioner's allegations that have survived initial review, and whether any claim is barred by a failure to exhaust state remedies, a procedural bar, non-retroactivity, a statute of limitations, or because the petition is an unauthorized second or successive petition. See, e.g., Rules 5(b) and 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District C ou r ts . C. Copies of the answer, the designation, and Respondent's brief shall be served upon the petitioner at the time they are filed with the court except that Respondent is only required to provide the petitioner with a copy of the specific pages of the designated record which are cited in Respondent's brief. In the event that the designation of state court records is deemed insufficient by Petitioner, Petitioner may file a motion with the court requesting additional documents. Such motion shall set forth the documents requested and the reasons the documents are relevant to the cognizable claims. No later than 30 days following the filing of Respondent's brief, Petitioner shall file and serve a brief in response. Petitioner shall submit no other documents unless directed to do so by the court. No later than 30 days after the filing of Petitioner's brief, Respondent shall file and serve a reply brief. In the event that Respondent elects not to file a reply brief, he should inform the

D.

E.

5

court by filing a notice stating that he will not file a reply brief and that the merits of the petition are therefore fully submitted for decision. F. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: January 18, 2010: check for respondent to file answer and separate brief.

6. No discovery shall be undertaken without leave of the court. See Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. November 5, 2009. 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. 6