Floyd v. Houston

Filing 53

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER- By July 10, 2014, Respondent shall show good cause or excusable neglect for his failure to once again comply with this court's orders. (See Memorandum and Order dated January 27, 2014, ordering Respondent to show good cau se or excusable neglect for failure to comply with courts orders.) Failure to do so may result in sanctions. Also by July 10, 2014, as previously ordered, Respondent shall file and serve a brief in response to Petitioners actual-innocence claim, w hich Petitioner raised in Filing Number 49 . As set forth in the court's Text Order dated May 28, 2014, no later than 60 days following the filing of Respondent's brief, Petitioner shall file and serve a reply brief that addresses the matters set forth by Respondent in his Brief dated March 3, 2014, and also the matters set forth in the brief Respondent will serve in response to Petitioners actual-innocence claim. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadlines: ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 7/10/2014: Deadline for Respondent to show good cause and filebrief.) 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 its own motion. On May 16, 2014, the court
ordered Respondent to file and serve a brief in response to Petitioner’s actualinnocence claim within 30 days. (See Filing No. 50 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Respondent
failed to do so. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
By July 10, 2014, Respondent shall show good cause or excusable
neglect for his failure to once again comply with this court’s orders.
(See Memorandum and Order dated January 27, 2014, ordering Respondent to show
good cause or excusable neglect for failure to comply with court’s orders.) Failure
to do so may result in sanctions.
2.
Also by July 10, 2014, as previously ordered, Respondent shall file and
serve a brief in response to Petitioner’s actual-innocence claim, which Petitioner
raised in Filing Number 49. See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1932-33
(2013) (holding plea of actual innocence can overcome Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act’s one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas petitions); see
also Brownlow v. Groose, 66 F.3d 997, 999 (8th Cir. 1995) (“The fundamental
miscarriage of justice, or actual innocence, exception to the procedural default
doctrine enables a federal habeas court to consider the merits of a defaulted claim

when the petitioner makes a showing, based on new evidence, that ‘a constitutional
violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent.’
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 [] (1995)”).
3.
As set forth in the court’s Text Order dated May 28, 2014, no later than
60 days following the filing of Respondent’s brief, Petitioner shall file and serve a
reply brief that addresses the matters set forth by Respondent in his Brief dated March
3, 2014, and also the matters set forth in the brief Respondent will serve in response
to Petitioner’s actual-innocence claim.
4.
The clerk’s office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline
in this matter: July 10, 2014: Deadline for Respondent to show good cause and file
brief.
DATED this 26th day of June, 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.

2