Hood v. Jeffreys et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
EDWARD HOOD,
Petitioner,
v.
ROB JEFFREYS, Director of Nebraska
Department of Correctional Services; MIKE
HILGERS, Nebraska Attorney General; and
CRAIG GABLE, Warden of Reception and
Treatment Center,
Respondents.
4:25CV3020
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner Edward Hood’s (“Hood”) pro se
Motion for Extension for Petitioner to File[] Response in Objection to Recommendation to
this Court (Filing No. 15) and Objection to the Court Recommendation (Filing No. 16).
Both motions come too late and fail to comply with the local rules.
On July 11, 2025, the magistrate judge assigned to this case1 issued a Findings and
Recommendation (Filing No. 12) recommending the Court grant respondents Rob Jeffreys,
Mike Hilgers, and Craig Gable’s 	motion 	for summary judgment. 	See 	28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (authorizing the referral of such dispositive matters to a magistrate judge
for review). 	He reasoned that Hood’s petition is barred by the pertinent statute of
limitation, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), and that Hood had given “no reason to toll the
limitations period or excuse its procedural bar.” See McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383,
386 (2013); Walker v. Norris, 436 F.3d 1026, 1032 (8th Cir. 2006). 	In closing, the
magistrate 	judge 	notified 	the 	parties 	“that 	failing 	to 	file 	an 	objection 	to 	this
recommendation as provided in the local rules of this court may be held to be a waiver of
1 The Honorable Ryan C. Carson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of
Nebraska.
4:25-cv-03020-RFR-RCC Doc # 19 Filed: 11/12/25 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
any right to appeal the court’s adoption of the recommendation.” 	See NECivR 72.2(a)
(giving fourteen days to object to a findings and recommendation); accord 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Neither party objected in the time allowed.
On August 12, 2025, (long after the time to object expired), the Court accepted the
Findings and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed this case with prejudice (Filing
No. 13). The Court entered judgment against Hood the same day (Filing No. 14).
More than a month later, Hood moved the Court to extend the time to object, citing
problems with his retained counsel, Jason E. Troia (“Troia”). Another month passed before
he objected to the Findings and Recommendation, asserting he has new evidence. 	Neither
filing is even close to timely, and the Court finds no compelling reason to set aside its
judgment at this point—which remains factually and legally sound.
What’s more, 	Hood’s 	pro se 	filings fail to comply with Nebraska General
Rule 1.3(i), which provides that “[o]nce an attorney is appointed or retained, all further
documents and other communications with the court must be submitted through the
attorney, unless the court permits otherwise.”2 Although Troia filed a Motion to Withdraw
as Counsel (Filing No. 18), on November 6, 2025, he remains Hood’s counsel of record at
this time and was his counsel when Hood filed the documents at issue. See NEGenR 1.3(f)
(“An attorney of record may withdraw upon showing good cause, but is relieved of duties
to the court, the client, and opposing attorneys only after (1) filing a motion to withdraw,
(2) providing proof of service of the motion on the client, and (3) obtaining the court’s
leave to withdraw.”).
In his motion for an extension of time, Hood acknowledges that he cannot file pro
se documents in this Court while Troia represents him. He indicates that he has been trying
to have Troia removed as counsel in the District Court of Garden County, Nebraska but
2 The Clerk of Court also noted Hood’s objection is unsigned (Filing No. 17). See
NECivR 11.1.
4:25-cv-03020-RFR-RCC Doc # 19 Filed: 11/12/25 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
has not yet succeeded. In any event, his ongoing efforts in that state court have no effect
in this federal one and more importantly do not excuse the untimeliness of his objection.
See id. Even if the Court were to construe his motion for an extension of time as including
a motion to remove his counsel and proceed pro se, it came more than a month after this
Court entered judgment.
To the extent Hood faults Troia for failing to timely object to the Findings and
Recommendation, the Supreme Court has repeatedly “held that clients must be held
accountable for the acts and omissions of their attorneys.” 	Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.
Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 396 (1993); Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S.
626, 634 (1962) (explaining “[a]ny other notion would be wholly inconsistent with our
system of representative litigation, in which each party is deemed bound by the acts of his”
voluntarily chosen and freely selected lawyer-agent).
For the foregoing reasons, petitioner Edward Hood’s pro se Motion for Extension
for Petitioner to File[] Response in Objection to Recommendation to this Court (Filing
No. 15) and Objection to the Court Recommendation (Filing No. 16) are both denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of November 2025.
BY THE COURT:
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
4:25-cv-03020-RFR-RCC Doc # 19 Filed: 11/12/25 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>