Hasan v. Ishee
Petitioner: Siddique Abdullah Hasan
Respondent: Todd Ishee
Amicus: American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2003cv00288
Filed: April 22, 2003
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Cincinnati Office
County: MAHONING
Presiding Judge: Susan J. Dlott
Presiding Judge: Michael R Merz
Nature of Suit: Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 28, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 246 ORDER Adopting 119 and 81 Report and Recommendations in full except as where expressly set forth. Hasans Objections (ECF No. 91) and Supplemental Objections (ECF No. 122) are DENIED. The Petition (ECF No. 16) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJ UDICE as to all claims except Claims Eight, Nine, and Thirty-One. Judgment shall ultimately enter in favor of the Warden and against Hasan on the remaining thirty-two claims. No reasonable jurist would find that Hasan has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right[,] 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), or would disagree with the undersigneds conclusions with respect to Claims One through Seven, Ten through Twenty-Eight, Thirty, and Thirty-Three through Thirty-Five, and Petitio ner is denied a certificate of appealability on those claims. However, as reasonable jurists could disagree with the undersigneds conclusions as to Claims Twenty-Nine and Thirty-Two, Hasan is granted a certificate of appealability only as to those claims. Because Hasans appeal on these issues do not lack a basis in law or fact, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962), Hasan will ultimately be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Claims Eight, Nine, and Thirty-One remain pending before this Court.. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 4/28/2021. (wam)
April 6, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 243 ORDER ON CLAIMS EIGHT AND NINE - The Court finds that the Martinez-Trevino exception, applied to Ohio cases via White, constitutes good cause and prejudice to excuse the procedural default of Claims Eight and Nine. Not later than May 4, 2021, the p arties shall submit a joint discovery plan, including a proposed date for evidentiary hearing. Upon agreement of the parties, such a plan may encompass discovery and hearing for Claim Thirty-One as well (See Order, ECF No. 238, PageID 15263). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 4/5/2021. (kpf)
March 9, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 238 ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING - The undersigned's Order Denying Leave to Amend (ECF No. 216) is VACATED. Hasan's Motion for Leave to Amend Claim Thirty-One (ECF No. 210) is GRANTED. Hasan shall file Amended Claim Thirty-One within fourte en days of the entry of this Order. The Warden shall file a Return of Writ as to Amended Claim Thirty-One only within twenty-one days of the filing of the Amended Claim, and Hasan shall file a Traverse as to Amended Claim Thirty-One only within f ourteen days of the filing of the Return of Writ. Within thirty days of the Orders entry, the parties shall submit a joint discovery plan including a proposed date for evidentiary hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 3/9/2021. (kpf)
May 20, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 216 DECISION AND ORDER - Petitioners Motion to Amend Claim Thirty-One (ECF No. 210) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/20/2019. (kpf)
February 15, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 190 DECISION AND ORDER - Hasan's fourth ground for relief, in which he argues the grand jury that indicted him included some members who were biased against him is both not cognizable in habeas corpus and meritless. As a result, the relief he reques ts with regard to that ground is DENIED. Hasan's eighth, ninth and tenth grounds for relief remain procedurally defaulted as this Court found them to be in the Report and Recommendations. He has not presented the quality of evidence required by Schlup to demonstrate his actual innocence and excuse the default, and as it has not been determined that Martinez/Trevino applies in Ohio, his requests for expansion of the record, an evidentiary hearing on Schlup and Martinez/Trevino issues, or a s tay of his habeas case to permit a return to the state court are DENIED. Finally, Hasan's proposed thirty-sixth ground for relief does not implicate the federal constitution and is therefore not cognizable in habeas corpus. Consequently, Hasan&# 039;s requests to expand the record, amend his petition, for exploratory discovery, for discovery and/or an evidentiary hearing on post-conviction counsels ineffectiveness, for a determination of any state corrective process still available to pursue his claim in state court, or for a stay of these proceedings to allow a return to the state court are all DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 2/15/2018. (kpf)
January 14, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 155 ORDER TO FILE DIGITIZED RECORD - It is hereby ORDERED that the state court record previously filed herein in paper format be refiled electronically as now required by S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.1(c) by February 3, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 1/14/2014. (kpf1)
March 26, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 143 OPINION AND ORDER Modifying Protective Order in 2:02-cv-535. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 3/26/2012. (cw)
November 18, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 140 NOTICE TO COUNSEL - The Magistrate Judge has confirmed with Chief Judge Dlott that the discovery permitted to Petitioner on November 17, 2011, will be managed, to the extent necessary, by the Magistrate Judge in that it is a non-dispositive pretrial matter covered by the Order of Reference applicable to this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/18/2011. (kpf1)
November 17, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 139 ORDER granting Hasan leave to obtain limited discovery. The parties are to file a joint discovery status report or to jointly request a telephonic conference regarding the status of discovery on or before February 28, 2012.. Signed by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott on 11/17/11. (wam1)
September 1, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 135 ORDER SETTING ORAL ARGUMENT HEARING ( Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/20/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 7 - Cincinnati before Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott.). Signed by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott. (wam1)
June 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 132 MEMORANDUM OPINION ON THE IMPACT OF CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/7/2011. (kpf1)
June 6, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 130 ORDER FOR PRE-JUDGMENT BRIEFING ON CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY - It has been this Court's practice in the past to postpone consideration of certificate of appealability issues until after District Judge action on the report and recommendations on the merits. However, Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases was amended effective December 1, 2009 and the Court reads this new language to require that any report and recommendation on a certificate of appealability be available for the district judges consideration along with the report and recommendations on the merits. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that Petitioner file, not later than July 15, 2011, a motion for certificate of appealability on those grounds for relief as to which the Magistrate Judge has recommended denial and which the Petitioner intends to appeal if the District Judge adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/3/2011. (kpf1)
November 16, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 118 ORDER - This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Respondent's Motion for a Status Conference inquiring what additional "input, if any, the Court may require from the parties prior to issuance of any rulings or orders that coul d bring the case to a conclusion in this Court." (Doc. No. 117, PageID 1638). As the parties are aware, the General Order of Reference for the Dayton location of court permits a magistrate judge to reconsider decisions or reports and recommendat ions when objections are filed. The case is now pending before the Magistrate Judge for a supplemental report and recommendations in light of the pending Objections. Drafting of that report has commenced and will be completed before December 15, 2010 . No additional input from the parties is required for completion of this stage of the proceedings. The Magistrate Judge apologizes to the parties for the delay in completing this report. The Motion for Status Conference is denied without prejudice to its renewal if this entry does not adequately deal with Respondent's concerns. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/16/2010. (kpf1)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Hasan v. Ishee
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Siddique Abdullah Hasan
Represented By: Alan M Freedman
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: Todd Ishee
Represented By: Stephen E. Maher
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 ]
Amicus: American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Inc.
Represented By: Jeffrey M Gamso
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.


Why Is My Information Online?