Stanko v. United States of America

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - In accordance with General Order No. 2008-15, this matter is a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and is removed from the pro se docket. The Clerk of the court is directed to call this case to the attention of Chief Judge Joseph Bataillon for possible reassignment to him because it is related to Case Number 8:05CR93, in which he was the assigned judge. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA RUDY STANKO, and on behalf of similarly situated people, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8:10CV151

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. Plaintiff filed a complaint in this matter on April 19, 2010 (Filing No. 1). The Court has carefully reviewed plaintiff's

complaint and finds that it is the functional equivalent of a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, as it challenges plaintiff's conviction and sentence in Case Number 8:05CR93. IT IS ORDERED: 1. In accordance with General Order No. 2008-15, this

matter is a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and is removed from the pro se docket. 2. The Clerk of the court is directed to call this

case to the attention of Chief Judge Joseph Bataillon for

possible reassignment to him because it is related to Case Number 8:05CR93, in which he was the assigned judge. DATED this 24th day of August, 2010. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lyle E. Strom ____________________________ LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge United States District Court

__________________ * 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-