Red Kettle v. Scott Frakes

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion to Amend Pleadings (Filing No. 11 ) is granted. The Court will consider Filing No. 11 as supplemental to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in accordance with NECivR 15.1(b). The clerk's offi ce is directed to update the Courts records to reflect that the only respondent in this matter is "Robert P. Houston, Director, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services." Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG, )

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
amend his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to reflect the
proper Respondent is Robert P. Houston (Filing No. 11).

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:
1.
11) is granted.

Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Pleadings (Filing No.
The Court will consider Filing No. 11 as

supplemental to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in
accordance with NECivR 15.1(b).
2.

The clerk’s office is directed to update the

Court’s records to reflect that the only respondent in this

matter is “Robert P. Houston, Director, Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services.”
DATED this 26th 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.

-2-