Ballard v. Nebraska Department of Corrections et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KEVIN L. BALLARD,
Petitioner,
vs.
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, and LANCASTER
COUNTY DISTRICT COURT,
Respondents.
8:25CV508
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on preliminary review of Petitioner
Robert C. Jamerson’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Filing No. 1, brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 20, 2025. However, this matter will
not proceed further until Petitioner cures the deficiencies discussed below.
First, a habeas corpus petition must “substantially follow either the form
appended to [the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts], or a form prescribed by a local district-court rule.” See Rule 2
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
Here, Petitioner did not use the Form AO 241, Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody. Rather, he submitted a seven-page,
handwritten document which does not clearly indicate the grounds upon which
Petitioner seeks habeas relief.
Second, Petitioner has named improper respondents in the Petition.
Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts states that “if the petitioner is currently in custody under a
state-court judgment, the petition must name as respondent the state officer
8:25-cv-00508-JMG-PRSE Doc # 11 Filed: 11/19/25 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
who has custody.” In habeas corpus challenges to present physical
confinement, the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of
the facility where the prisoner is being held. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.
426, 434 (2005). Here, Petitioner has named the Nebraska Department of
Corrections and the “Lancaster County District Court” as respondents in this
matter, neither of which is a proper respondent. Rob Jeffreys is the director of
the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services and is, thus, the proper
Respondent in this matter.
Based on these deficiencies, Petitioner’s petition is deemed insufficient,
and the Court will not act upon it. However, on the Court’s own motion,
Petitioner will have 30 days in which to file an amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. The pending Petition, Filing No. 1, is deemed insufficient and the
Court will not act upon it.
2. By December 19, 2025, Petitioner shall file an amended petition
for writ of habeas corpus that is originally signed under penalty of perjury and
in which he names the proper respondent, and that clearly states both his
claims and facts and law supporting the relief sought for each claim. Petitioner
is encouraged to use the enclosed official Form AO 241. To avoid confusion,
any document Petitioner sends to the Clerk of the Court for filing in this case
must clearly display the case number (8:25CV508). Failure to file an amended
petition in accordance with this Memorandum and Order will result in
dismissal of this matter without further notice.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to Petitioner the Form
AO 241 (“Petition for Relief From a Conviction or Sentence By a Person in State
Custody”).
8:25-cv-00508-JMG-PRSE Doc # 11 Filed: 11/19/25 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline in this matter with the following text: December 19, 2025: Check for
amended petition.
Dated this 19th day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
8:25-cv-00508-JMG-PRSE Doc # 11 Filed: 11/19/25 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>