Red Kettle v. Scott Frakes
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion to Amend Pleadings (Filing No. 9 ) is granted. The Court will consider Filing Number 9 as supplemental to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in accordance with NECivR 15.1(b). Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (AOA)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BYRON K. RED KETTLE,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
8:13CV171
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s “Motion
to Amend Pleadings,” in which petitioner requests that the Court
incorporate certain “facts and information” from the motion into
his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1).
Nebraska
Civil Rule 15.1 states that, in pro se cases, the Court may
consider an amended pleading as supplemental to the original
pleading.
NECivR 15.1(b).
Upon careful consideration,
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion to Amend
Pleadings (Filing No. 9) is granted.
The Court will consider
Filing Number 9 as supplemental to the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus in accordance with NECivR 15.1(b).
DATED this 1st day of August, 2013.
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.
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?