Kinser v. Sabatka-Rine

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion to Stay (Filing No. 3 ) is denied as moot. Petitioner's habeas corpus petition remains pending and the court will address it in its normal course of business. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WILLIAM D. KINSER JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
DIANE SABATKA-RINE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV187

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Filing No. 3), which
was filed in conjunction with his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1).
Petitioner asked the court to stay and abey these proceedings “until such time as the State
appellate process has concluded.” (Filing No. 3 at CM/ECF p. 2.) At the time Petitioner
filed his habeas corpus petition in this court, the Nebraska Supreme Court had not yet ruled
on his petition for further review following the state district court’s denial of postconviction
relief.
The state court records filed by Respondent on October 27, 2014, reflect that the
Nebraska Supreme Court denied the petition for further review on June 25, 2014, two days
after Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition in this court. (See Filing No. 15-2 at CM/ECF
p. 2.) Accordingly, the court will deny Petitioner’s Motion to Stay as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Filing No. 3) is
denied as moot. Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition remains pending and the court will
address it in its normal course of business.
DATED this 4th day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior 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.