Floyd v. Houston

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion for Default Judgment (filing no. 26 ) is denied. Petitioner's Motion to Compel (filing no. 27 ) and Motion for Additional Documents (filing no. 30 ) are denied without prejudice to reassertion. Petitioner's Motions for Enlargement of Time (filing nos. 28 and 32 ) are granted. Petitioner shall have until April 7, 2014, to file a response to Respondent's Brief. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WILLIAM C. FLOYD JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL L. KENNEY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:13CV195

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on a Response (filing no. 29) to the court’ s
January 27, 2014, Memorandum and Order, and several Motions filed by Petitioner
(filing nos. 26, 27, 28, 30 and 32).
On January 27, 2014, the court ordered Respondent to show good cause or
excusable neglect for his failure to comply with this court’s orders. (Filing No. 22.)
On February 21, 2014, Respondent filed a Response to the court’s order. (Filing No.
29.) In the Response, Respondent’s counsel explains that he “neglected to change the
due date of the Respondent’s brief and answer” and “clearly missed the date because
it did not appear on [his] electronic calendar.” (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 2-3.) The court
has carefully reviewed the Response and finds that Respondent has shown excusable
neglect for his failure to comply with this court’s orders. However, the court warns
Respondent that further neglect in this case will not be tolerated and may result in
sanctions. Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment (filing no. 26), requesting that
this court immediately release him because Respondent failed to comply with this
court’s orders, is denied.
In addition to explaining his neglect, Respondent’s counsel reported that he
needed to file additional state court records in this matter. (Filing No. 29 at CM/ECF
pp. 3-4.) Respondent’s counsel has since filed those records. (See Filing No. 31.)
Meanwhile, Petitioner has filed a Motion to Compel (filing no. 27) and a Motion for

Additional Documents (filing no. 30). In these Motions, Petitioner indicates that he
is confused about the state court records that have been filed in this matter. (Id.) He
has also provided a list of records that he feels should be filed. (See Filing No. 30.)
In accordance with the court’s July 16, 2013, Memorandum and Order, Respondent
is only required to file state court records that are relevant to the cognizable claims.
(See Filing No. 6 at CM/ECF pp. 4-5.) Moreover, Petitioner filed his Motions before
Respondent filed the latest set of state court records. (See Docket Sheet; Filing No.
31.) If, after reviewing these newly-filed state court records, Petitioner still needs
additional documents, he may file a motion with the court to request those documents.
However, the court reminds Petitioner that such motion must set forth the reasons the
documents are relevant to the cognizable claims. Petitioner’s Motion to Compel
(filing no. 27) and Motion for Additional Documents (filing no. 30) are denied
without prejudice to reassertion.
Also pending are Petitioner’s Motions for Enlargement of Time. (Filing Nos.
28 and 32.) In these Motions, Petitioner requests an extension of time to respond to
Respondent’s Answer. (Id.) Petitioner’s request is granted. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment (filing no. 26) is denied.

2.
Petitioner’s Motion to Compel (filing no. 27) and Motion for Additional
Documents (filing no. 30) are denied without prejudice to reassertion.

2

3.
Petitioner’s Motions for Enlargement of Time (filing nos. 28 and 32) are
granted. Petitioner shall have until April 7, 2014, to file a response to Respondent’s
Brief.

DATED this 26th day of February, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*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.
3