Journey v. Nebraska Mental Health Board, 8:19CV89. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20190508e23
Visitors: 7
Filed: May 07, 2019
Latest Update: May 07, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RICHARD G. KOPF , Senior District Judge . Petitioner has filed a variety of documents. I will deny them. I do so, for among other reasons, because Petitioner has failed to follow the progression order (filing no. 8) and additionally because some of these filings wrongly attempt to assert a claim for damages in this habeas corpus action. IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Motion for Summary Judgment (filing no. 11) is denied. 2. The Motion for a Restraining Order (filing no.
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RICHARD G. KOPF , Senior District Judge . Petitioner has filed a variety of documents. I will deny them. I do so, for among other reasons, because Petitioner has failed to follow the progression order (filing no. 8) and additionally because some of these filings wrongly attempt to assert a claim for damages in this habeas corpus action. IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Motion for Summary Judgment (filing no. 11) is denied. 2. The Motion for a Restraining Order (filing no. 1..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF, Senior District Judge.
Petitioner has filed a variety of documents. I will deny them. I do so, for among other reasons, because Petitioner has failed to follow the progression order (filing no. 8) and additionally because some of these filings wrongly attempt to assert a claim for damages in this habeas corpus action.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Motion for Summary Judgment (filing no. 11) is denied.
2. The Motion for a Restraining Order (filing no. 13) is denied.
3. The Objection for Summary Judgment (filing no. 16) is denied.
4. The Petitioner is reminded that he has until the close of business on June 3, 2019, to file a brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment submitted by Respondents (filing no. 17 (Respondents' Motion); filing no. 18 (Respondents' Brief)). Without intending to constrain Petitioner, he may wish to address Respondents' argument that Petitioner's habeas claims have been procedurally defaulted and no cause or prejudice has been shown to excuse the default.
Source: Leagle
