Hillard v. Lewien et al, No. 8:2014cv00310 - Document 19 (D. Neb. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION - This matter is before the Court on Respondents Barbara Lewien's and Scott Frakes's unopposed Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 16 ). Respondents argue petitioner Robert S. Hillard's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1 ) should be dismissed as moot because he is no longer incarcerated, having been mandatorily discharged from the Nebraska Department of Corrections on February 25, 2015. For the reasons set forth by respondents in their Brief in Suppor t of Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 18 ), the Court agrees that there is no existing case or controversy upon which this Court may grant relief. A separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hillard v. Lewien et al Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ROBERT S. HILLARD, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) BARBARA LEWIEN, Warden, and ) SCOTT FRAKES, ) ) Respondents. ) ______________________________) 8:14CV310 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on Respondents Barbara Lewien’s and Scott Frakes’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 16). Respondents argue petitioner Robert S. Hillard’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1) should be dismissed as moot because he is no longer incarcerated, having been mandatorily discharged from the Nebraska Department of Corrections on February 25, 2015. For the reasons set forth by respondents in their Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 18), the Court agrees that there is no existing case or controversy upon which this Court may grant relief. A Dockets.Justia.com separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. DATED this 22nd day of September, 2015. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lyle E. Strom ____________________________ LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge United States District Court -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
