ORDER ON INITIAL REVIEW

LAURIE SMITH CAMP, Chief District Judge.

This matter is before the Court for initial review of Petitioner Eric Vela's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, ECF No. 1. Under § 2254, "a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to conduct an initial review of the petition and summarily dismiss it "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Absent such dismissal, the Court "must order to respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to take other action the [Court] may order." Id.

According to the Petition, on July 12, 2003, Vela pled guilty to five counts of first degree murder and five counts of use of a weapon to commit a felony, in the district court of Madison County, Nebraska. ECF No. 1, Page ID 8. A jury found five aggravating factors present for each murder count. Id. Vela moved to preclude the death penalty due to alleged intellectual disability; his motion was denied; a three-judge panel determined that the aggravating factors outweighed any mitigating factors; and death penalties were imposed with respect to each murder count. Id. Vela appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, and was denied relief. Id. (citing State v. Vela, 777 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2010)). He petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, and was denied. Id. at Page ID 9 (citing Vela v. Nebraska, 560 U.S. 945 (2010) (Mem)). He moved for post-conviction relief in the state district court and, ultimately, that request was denied in the district court and on appeal to the state Supreme Court. Id. (citing State v. Vela, 900 N.W.2d 8 (Neb. 2017)). On December 7, 2017, he filed a second motion for post-conviction relief in the district court of Madison County, raising issues related to Supreme Court holdings in Moore v. Texas, 137 S.Ct. 1039 (2017); Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016); and Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ____, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), as well as Nebraska's recent death penalty referendum. That motion remains pending, and Vela states he anticipates filing a motion to hold this proceeding in abeyance pending resolution of the state postconviction proceeding. See, e.g., Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005); Akins v. Kenney, 410 F.3d 451, 455-56 (8th Cir. 2005).

Upon initial review of the Petition, the Court provisionally finds that summary dismissal is not required in this case, and that the Respondent should answer or otherwise respond to the Petition. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

2. On or before May 9, 2018, the Respondent will file a response consisting of either an answer to the Petition on the merits of the claims and raising any affirmative defenses in the manner contemplated by Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, or a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The Clerk of Court is directed to set a casemanagement deadline for this date.