Red Kettle v. Scott Frakes

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 48 ) and Motion for Hearing (Filing No. 49 ) are 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,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL L. KENNY, Director,
Nebraska Department of
Correctional Services,
Respondent.

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

8:13CV171

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s Motion
for the Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 48) and Motion for
Hearing (Filing No. 49).

The Court dismissed the Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus at issue in this case on April 18, 2014,
because it was a second or successive petition.
40 and 41.)

(See Filing Nos.

Thereafter, the Court denied three motions filed by

petitioner seeking to further litigate his habeas corpus
petition.

(See Filing Nos. 42, 43, and 46.)
Here, petitioner seeks a hearing and the appointment of

counsel so that he can, once again, attempt to challenge the
state-court judgment of which he stands convicted.

However, as

set forth in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion dated April 18, 2014,
and again in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion dated May 2, 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 the
Appointment of Counsel (Filing No. 48) and Motion for Hearing
(Filing No. 49) are denied.
DATED this 5th day of December, 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.

-2-