Jones v. Barr

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - On the court's own motion, Case No. 8:20CV81 and Case No. 8:20CV275 shall be in all respects consolidated. Case No. 8:20CV81 shall be designated the lead case and all future filings shall be made in that case. Neither ca se shall be terminated for statistical or other purposes until a final judgment is entered in case 8:20CV81. The court shall consider the petitions filed in both cases when conducting initial review of the consolidated cases. Member Cases: 8:20-cv-00081-RGK-PRSE, 8:20-cv-00275-RGK-PRSEOrdered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(LKO)

8:20-cv-00081-RGK-PRSE Doc # 12 Filed: 01/08/21 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 49

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MARVEL JONES,
Petitioner,

8:20CV81

vs.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TOM BARR,
Respondent.
MARVEL JONES,
Petitioner,

8:20CV275

vs.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SHERI
DAWSON,
LABOUCHANOIERE,

and

MARK

Respondents.

In each of the above-captioned cases, Petitioner Marvel Jones has filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In each case,
Petitioner challenges his civil commitment by the Mental Health Board of
Lancaster County and seeks release from his present confinement in the Norfolk
Regional Center.
A review of the petitions clearly indicates that the above cases arise out of
the same state court judgment1 and should not proceed as separate cases.
Consequently, I will consolidate the two cases for all purposes as set forth below.
1

The petition in Case No. 8:20CV81 challenges the August 21, 2018 judgment of
the mental health board, while the petition in Case No. 8:20CV275 purports to challenge
the judgment of the Madison County District Court denying Petitioner’s state habeas

8:20-cv-00081-RGK-PRSE Doc # 12 Filed: 01/08/21 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 50

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
On the court’s own motion, Case No. 8:20CV81 and Case No.
8:20CV275 shall be in all respects consolidated. Case No. 8:20CV81 shall be
designated the lead case and all future filings shall be made in that case.
2.
Neither case shall be terminated for statistical or other purposes until a
final judgment is entered in case 8:20CV81.
3.
The court shall consider the petitions filed in both cases when
conducting initial review of the consolidated cases.
Dated this 8th day of January, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

corpus action. (Compare Filing 1 at CM/ECF p. 1, Case No. 8:20CV81 with Filing 1 at
CM/ECF p. 1, Case No. 8:20CV275.) However, the claims raised in both petitions clearly
seek to attack Petitioner’s civil commitment and, therefore, are properly considered in
one action. The Madison County District Court proceedings do not constitute a separate
judgment of conviction but rather represent a State remedy utilized by Petitioner to
exhaust his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

2