Davis v. Washington County Nebraska States Attorneys Office

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - This matter is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to prosecute this matter diligently and failed to comply with this court's orders. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT DAVIS,
Petitioner,
v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY
NEBRASKA STATES
ATTORNEYS OFFICE, Agency
Administrative Head,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:13CV145

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On July 25, 2013, the court
informed Petitioner that his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) was
insufficient because it must “substantially follow either the form appended to [the]
rules, or a form prescribed by a local district-court rule.” See Rule 2 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. (Filing No. 7.)
The court gave Petitioner 30 days to amend his Petition using Form AO 241, but
warned Petitioner that if he failed to amend by August 26, 2013, his Petition would
be dismissed “without further notice.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.) Petitioner failed to file
an amended petition by the court’s deadline. (See Docket Sheet.) Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
This matter is dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to
prosecute this matter diligently and failed to comply with this court’s orders.
2.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.

DATED this 30th day of August, 2013.
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.
2