Floyd v. Houston

Filing 182

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Floyd's motion for a court order (filing no. 177 ) is denied. Taking the prison mailbox rule into account, Floyd shall file his brief in response to Respondents' answer and brief on or before the close of business on Friday, April 5, 2019. Failure to file a brief within the time specified by the court may result in the court dismissing this matter without prejudice and without further notice for lack of prosecution. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline using the following text: April 5, 2019: check for Petitioner's brief. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LKO)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA WILLIAM C. FLOYD JR., Petitioner, vs. SCOTT FRAKES, Director of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services; and BRAD HANSEN, Warden Tecumseh State Correctional Institution; 8:13CV195 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Respondents. This matter is before the court on Petitioner William C. Floyd Jr.’s (“Petitioner” or “Floyd”) motion for a court order (filing no. 177) and the response (filing no. 180; filing no. 181) filed by Respondents. On March 18, 2019, Floyd filed his motion (filing no. 177) alleging his legal materials related to this pending habeas matter had been confiscated by the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (“TSCI”) and asking the court for a court order directing the return of his legal materials and for an extension of time to submit his brief. On March 20, 2019, the court directed Respondents to submit a brief with supporting evidentiary materials addressing Floyd’s motion and expressly deferred consideration of Floyd’s request for a continuance of his briefing deadline until further order of the court. (Filing No. 179.) Respondents submitted a brief with an accompanying index on March 21, 2019. (Filing No. 180; Filing No. 181.) As detailed in their brief in response (filing no. 180), Respondents investigated this matter and confirmed that on March 13, 2019, Caseworker Thompson searched Floyd’s cell and confiscated “a trash bag with papers inside.” (Filing No. 181-1.) According to TSCI Unit Manager Matthew Sharp, inmates are not allowed to have trash bags for security reasons. (Id.) On March 15, 2019, Floyd began the grievance process to obtain the legal material that was taken during the cell search. (Id.) On March 20, 2019, the Unit Disciplinary Committee went through the trash bag full of papers and determined that about 50% of the paperwork contained legal material. (Id.) According to Sharp, those legal materials were then given back to Floyd on March 20, 2019, at approximately 1600 hours. (Id.) Based upon the submissions of Respondents, the court will deny Floyd’s motion for a court order as his legal materials have been returned to him. Given that Floyd was without his legal materials for a one-week period, the court will grant Floyd’s request for an extension. Floyd shall have until the close of business on Friday, April 5, 2019, to submit his brief in response to Respondents’ answer and brief. The court has already accounted for the prison mailbox rule in setting this deadline, so Floyd’s brief must be received by the court no later than April 5, 2019. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Floyd’s motion for a court order (filing no. 177) is denied. 2. Taking the prison mailbox rule into account, Floyd shall file his brief in response to Respondents’ answer and brief on or before the close of business on Friday, April 5, 2019. Failure to file a brief within the time specified by the court may result in the court dismissing this matter without prejudice and without further notice for lack of prosecution. 3. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline using the following text: April 5, 2019: check for Petitioner’s brief. 2 Dated this 25th day of March, 2019. BY THE COURT: s/ Richard G. Kopf Senior United States District Judge 3

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?