Tyler v. Heavican et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that by December 7, 2012, Respondents 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 fo llowing text: December 7, 2012: deadline for Respondents to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment; If Respondents elect to file a motion for summary judgment or an answer, the followingprocedures outlined in the order shall be followed by Respondents and Petitioner; The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: January 7, 2013: check for Respondents to file answer and separate brief; and No discovery shall be undertaken without leave of the court. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(copy mailed to respondents)(ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BILLY TYLER,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL HEAVICAN, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 8:12CV363

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Filing No. 1.) The court
has conducted an initial review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to determine
whether the claims made by Petitioner are, when liberally construed, potentially cognizable
in federal court. Petitioner has made one claim.
Condensed and summarized for clarity, the claim asserted by Petitioner is:
Petitioner was denied due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
because Petitioner was convicted of the illegal practice of law without a trial.
Liberally construed, the court preliminarily decides that Petitioner’s 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, as set forth in this Memorandum and
Order, 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 7, 2012, Respondents 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 7, 2012: deadline for Respondents to file
state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment;

4.

If Respondents elect to file a motion for summary judgment, the following
procedures shall be followed by Respondents and Petitioner:
A.

The motion for summary judgment shall be accompanied by a
separate brief, submitted at the time of the filing of the motion.

B.

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.”

C.

Copies of the motion for summary judgment, the designation,
including state court records, and Respondents’ brief shall be served
upon Petitioner except that Respondents are only required to provide
Petitioner with a copy of the specific pages of the record which are
cited in Respondents’ 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.

D.

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.

E.

No later than 30 days after the filing of Petitioner’s brief, Respondents
shall file and serve a reply brief. In the event that Respondents elect
not to file a reply brief, they should inform the court by filing a notice
stating that they will not file a reply brief and that the motion is
therefore fully submitted for decision.

F.

If the motion for summary judgment is denied, Respondents 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. Respondents are warned that the failure to file an
answer, a designation and a brief in a timely fashion may result
2

in the imposition of sanctions, including the release of
Petitioner;
5.

If Respondents elect to file an answer, the following procedures shall be
followed by Respondents and Petitioner:
A.

By December 3, 2012, Respondents 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.”

B.

No later than 30 days after the filing of the relevant state court
records, Respondents shall file an answer. The answer shall be
accompanied by a separate brief, submitted at the time of the 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 Courts.

C.

Copies of the answer, the designation, and Respondents’ brief shall
be served upon Petitioner at the time they are filed with the court
except that Respondents are only required to provide Petitioner with
a copy of the specific pages of the designated record which are cited
in Respondents’ 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.

D.

No later than 30 days following the filing of Respondents’ brief,
Petitioner shall file and serve a brief in response. Petitioner shall
submit no other documents unless directed to do so by the court.

E.

No later than 30 days after the filing of Petitioner’s brief, Respondents
shall file and serve a reply brief. In the event that Respondents elect
not to file a reply brief, they should inform the court by filing a notice
stating that they will not file a reply brief and that the merits of the
petition are therefore fully submitted for decision.

3

F.

6.

The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline in this case using the following text: January 7, 2013: check
for Respondents to file answer and separate brief; and

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.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2012.
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.
4