Suntoke v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
| Kali S. Suntoke |
| Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution |
| 2:2015cv01354 |
| April 22, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Columbus Office |
| MUSKINGUM |
| Elizabeth Preston Deavers |
| James L Graham |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
93
DEFICIENCY ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 3/12/2019. (srb)
|
|
Filing
91
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 2/20/2019. (srb)
|
|
Filing
88
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 70 Report and Recommendations.; denying 78 Objection to Magistrate Judge Order; adopting Report and Recommendations re 80 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 2/14/2019. (ds)
|
|
Filing
87
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME- The Motion is what might be called a boot strap motion for extension. That is, the last extension of time granted expired on February 4, 2019, and Petitioners counsel did not f ile for a further extension until 2:17 p.m. on February 5, 2019. If the Magistrate Judge denies the extension, Petitioner is already out of time to object and thereby loses significant rights on appeal. See UnitedStates v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949- 50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985). Finally, the holidays have been over for more than a month. Accordingly, Petitioners time to file objections is extended to February 11, 2019, and will not be further extended. Objections to R&R due by 2/11/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 2/5/19. (kma)
|
|
Filing
85
ORDER REGARDING DOCUMENTS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 1/28/2019. (srb)
|
|
Filing
80
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Having reconsidered the case upon recommittal, the Magistrate Judge again respectfully recommends the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusi on, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability and the Court should certify to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 1/3/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 12/20/2018. (kpf)
|
|
Filing
73
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 8/10/2018. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
70
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability and the Court s hould certify to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 8/17/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 8/2/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
62
OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 3/19/2018. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
59
OPINION AND ORDER denying 51 Motion. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 2/27/2018. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
37
OPINION AND ORDER denying 34 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 8/31/2016. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Suntoke v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Kali S. Suntoke | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
