Nichols v. Wright

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner has 30 days in which to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with this court's order. The clerk's office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this matter: May 1, 2015: deadline for Petitioner to show cause. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DEREK R. NICHOLS,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM WRIGHT, Judge (Buffalo
District Judge) Official Capacity,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV333

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On January 29, 2015, the court
ordered Petitioner to name the current warden of his present place of confinement as the
respondent in this habeas corpus action within 30 days. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.
426, 434 (2005) (“The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper
respondent to a habeas petition is the person who has custody over the petitioner.”)
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). To date, Petitioner has not complied with
this court’s order or taken any other action in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner has 30 days in which to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply
with this court’s order. The clerk’s office is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline in this matter: May 1, 2015: deadline for Petitioner to show cause.
DATED this 30th day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
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.