Newman v. State of Nebraska

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The next step in this case is for the court to conduct a preliminary review of the habeas corpus petition in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. The court will conduct this review in its normal course of business. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
STEWART NEWMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:15CV10

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 3) and a Motion for
Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 2). Habeas corpus cases attacking the
legality of a person’s confinement require the payment of a $5.00 filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §
1914(a). However, after considering Petitioner’s financial status as shown in the records
of this court (see inmate trust account statement at Filing No. 4), provisional leave to
proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and Petitioner is relieved from paying the filing
fee at this time. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis (Filing No. 2) is granted. The next step in this case is for the court to
conduct a preliminary review of the habeas corpus petition in accordance with Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. The court will conduct this review in its normal
course of business.
DATED this 14th day of January, 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.