Saufley v. Sabatka-Rine ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA JOE K. SAUFLEY, Petitioner, 4:22CV3014 vs. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SCOTT FRAKES,1 Respondent. This matter is before me on preliminary review of Petitioner Joe K. Saufley’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing 1) brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and filed in this court on January 31, 2022. Petitioner set forth in his habeas corpus petition that, pursuant to a guilty plea, he was convicted of assault in the first degree, first-degree sexual assault, strangulation with serious bodily injury, first-degree domestic assault, and disturbing the peace on February 26, 2018. (Filing 1 at CM/ECF pp. 1–2.) Petitioner did not file a direct appeal of his convictions and sentences. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 6, 8, 11.) Petitioner filed a motion for postconviction relief on October 23, 2018, which the state district court denied on May 20, 2019. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 3, 6.) Petitioner appealed, and the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s denial of postconviction relief on March 16, 2021. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 2.) See also State v. Saufley, 956 N.W.2d 726 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). Petitioner sought further review in the Nebraska Supreme Court, but he does not clearly allege when his petition was resolved. (Filing 1 at CM/ECF p. 2.) According to Petitioner’s state court records, the Nebraska 1 I have changed the caption to reflect that Scott Frakes, the Director of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (“NDCS”), is the sole proper respondent in this matter as Petitioner alleges he is in the custody of the NDCS. Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s petition for further review on April 20, 2021, and the mandate issued on May 4, 2021.2 It appears from the face of the petition and the state court records that Petitioner’s claims may be barred by the statute of limitations because the petition was filed more than one year after Petitioner’s judgment became final. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). However, in order to ensure a just and fair resolution of this matter, the court will enter an order progressing this case to final resolution. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. By May 16, 2022, Respondent must file a motion for summary judgment or state court records in support of an answer. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: May 16, 2022: deadline for Respondent to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment. 2. If Respondent elects to file a motion for summary judgment, the following procedures must be followed by Respondent and Petitioner: A. The motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by a separate brief, submitted at the time the motion is filed. B. The motion for summary judgment must be supported by any state court records that are necessary to support the motion. Those records must be contained in a separate filing entitled: 2 I take judicial notice of the state court records. See Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 761 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (court may take judicial notice of public records); Federal Rule of Evidence 201 (providing for judicial notice of adjudicative facts). Nebraska’s judicial records may be retrieved on-line through the JUSTICE site, https://www.nebraska.gov/justice/case.cgi. “Designation of State Court Records in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.” C. Copies of the motion for summary judgment, the designation, including state court records, and Respondent’s brief must be served on Petitioner except that Respondent is only required to provide Petitioner with a copy of the specific pages of the record that are cited in Respondent’s motion and brief. In the event that the designation of state court records is deemed insufficient by Petitioner or Petitioner needs additional records from the designation, Petitioner may file a motion with the court requesting additional documents. Such motion must set forth the documents requested and the reasons the documents are relevant to the cognizable claims. D. No later than 30 days following the filing of the motion for summary judgment, Petitioner must file and serve a brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Petitioner may not submit other documents unless directed to do so by the court. E. No later than 30 days after Petitioner’s brief is filed, Respondent must file and serve a reply brief. In the event that Respondent elects not to file a reply brief, he should inform the court by filing a notice stating that he will not file a reply brief and that the motion is therefore fully submitted for decision. F. If the motion for summary judgment is denied, Respondent must file an answer, a designation and a brief that complies with terms of this order. (See the following paragraph.) The documents must be filed no later than 30 days after the denial of the motion for summary judgment. Respondent is warned that failure to file an answer, a designation and a brief in a timely fashion may result in the imposition of sanctions, including Petitioner’s release. 3. If Respondent elects to file an answer, the following procedures must be followed by Respondent and Petitioner: A. By May 16, 2022, Respondent must file all state court records that are relevant to the cognizable claims. See, e.g., Rule 5(c)- (d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Those records must be contained in a separate filing entitled: “Designation of State Court Records in Support of Answer.” B. No later than 30 days after the relevant state court records are filed, Respondent must file an answer. The answer must be accompanied by a separate brief, submitted at the time the answer is filed. Both the answer and the brief must address all matters germane to the case including, but not limited to, the merits of Petitioner’s allegations that have survived initial review, and whether any claim is barred by a failure to exhaust state remedies, a procedural bar, non-retroactivity, a statute of limitations, or because the petition is an unauthorized second or successive petition. See, e.g., Rules 5(b) and 9 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. C. Copies of the answer, the designation, and Respondent’s brief must be served on Petitioner at the time they are filed with the court except that Respondent is only required to provide Petitioner with a copy of the specific pages of the designated record that are cited in Respondent’s answer and brief. In the event that the designation of state court records is deemed insufficient by Petitioner or Petitioner needs additional records from the designation, Petitioner may file a motion with the court requesting additional documents. Such motion must set forth the documents requested and the reasons the documents are relevant to the cognizable claims. D. No later than 30 days after Respondent’s brief is filed, Petitioner must file and serve a brief in response. Petitioner must not submit any other documents unless directed to do so by the court. E. No later than 30 days after Petitioner’s brief is filed, Respondent must file and serve a reply brief. In the event that Respondent elects not to file a reply brief, he should inform the court by filing a notice stating that he will not file a reply brief and that the merits of the petition are therefore fully submitted for decision. F. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: June 15, 2022: check for Respondent’s answer and separate brief. 4. No discovery shall be undertaken without leave of the court. See Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 5. The clerk of the court is directed to update the court’s records to eliminate “NOCS” as a respondent and list Scott Frakes as the sole proper respondent in this action. Dated this Ist day of April, 2022. BY THE COURT: Kichard Gp. □□□ Richard G. Kopt Senior United States District Judge