Red Kettle v. Scott Frakes
ORDER - Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 43 ) is denied. 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,
MICHAEL L. KENNY, Director,
Nebraska Department of
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s Motion
for Reconsideration (Filing No. 43).
reconsideration of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Judgment dated April 18, 2014, in which the Court dismissed
petitioner’s habeas corpus petition because it is a second or
successive petition that has not been authorized by the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Filing
Upon careful consideration, the Court finds no good
cause to reconsider any portion of its previous order.
forth in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion dated April 18, 2014, if
petitioner wishes to pursue this matter, he should file a motion
with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals fully addressing the
legal requirements for successive habeas corpus petitions set
forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Filing No. 43) is denied.
DATED this 2nd day of May, 2014.
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?