McDougald v. Houston et al
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Upon initial review of the Petition (filing no. 1 ), the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's claims, as set forth in this Memorandum and Order, are potentially cognizable in federal court. The Clerk of the court is directed to mail copies of this Memorandum and Order and the Petition to Respondent and the Nebraska Attorney General by regular first-class mail. By July 16, 2013, 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: July 16, 2013: 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 set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: August 16, 2013: check for Respondent to file answer and separate brief. 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. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KEITH MCDOUGALD,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
V.
)
)
ROBERT P. HOUSTON, Director,
)
and FRED BRITTEN, Warden, et al., )
)
Respondents.
)
8:13CV00151
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
The court has conducted an initial review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (filing no. 1) to determine whether the claims made by Petitioner are, when
liberally construed, potentially cognizable in federal court. Petitioner has made three
claims.
Condensed and summarized for clarity, the claims asserted by Petitioner are:
Claim One:
Petitioner was denied due process in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment because 1) “there was never
a proper Amended Information filed”; and 2)
“Petitioner’s conviction was obtained on the basis of
a no contest plea which was not knowingly,
willingly, intelligently, and understandingly made.”
Claim Two:
Petitioner was denied effective assistance of trial
counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments because petitioner’s counsel failed to
investigate; 2) “discover and produce evidence”; 3)
“properly and correctly advise”; 4) “present a known
defense”; and 5) failed to make timely objections.
Claim Three:
Petitioner was denied effective assistance of
appellate counsel in violation of the Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments because appellate counsel
failed “to raise issue[s] that would appear on the
record, such as, that the plea was invalid and void
due to a defective Information or Amended
Information and due to the fact medical evidence
refuted the state[’]s case.”
Liberally construed, the court preliminarily decides that all of Petitioner’s
claims are potentially cognizable in federal court. However, the court cautions that
no determination has been made regarding the merits of these claims 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 claims, as set forth in this Memorandum and Order, are
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 Respondent and the Nebraska Attorney General by
regular first-class mail.
3.
By July 16, 2013, 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: July 16,
2013: deadline for Respondent to file state court records in support of answer or
2
motion for summary judgment.
4.
If Respondent elects to file a motion for summary judgment, the
following procedures shall be followed by Respondent 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 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 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.
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.
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
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.
F.
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 Petitioner.
5.
If Respondent elects to file an answer, the following procedures shall be
followed by Respondent and Petitioner:
A.
By July 16, 2013, 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.”
B.
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
filing of the answer. Both the answer and brief shall address all
matters germane to the case including, but not limited to, the
4
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 Respondent’s brief
shall be served upon Petitioner at the time they are filed with the
court except that Respondent is only required to provide
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.
D.
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.
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
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 merits of the petition are therefore fully submitted for
decision.
5
F.
The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline in this case using the following text: August 16, 2013:
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.
DATED this 5th day of June, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?