Monroe v. Warden Ohio State Penitentiary
Petitioner: Jonathon D. Monroe
Respondent: Warden Ohio State Penitentiary
Case Number: 2:2007cv00258
Filed: March 23, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Columbus Office
County: FRANKLIN
Presiding Judge: Terence P Kemp
Presiding Judge: Michael H. Watson
Nature of Suit: Death Penalty - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
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
November 2, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 204 OPINION AND ORDER OVERRULING Respondent's Objections 180 and 184 . The Court AGREES with and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's 8/17/2017 Decision and Order 177 and 9/18/2017 Supplemental Memorandum Opinion 183 . Signed by Judge Sarah D. Morrison on 11/2/2020. (tb)
September 18, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 183 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PETITIONERS SECOND MOTION TO STAY AND HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE- Based on the foregoing analysis, the Wardens Objections should be OVERRULED. re 180 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 9/18/17. (kma)
August 17, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 177 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION TO STAY AND HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 8/17/2017. (kpf)
September 30, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 166 OPINION AND ORDER adopting 162 the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations recommending denial of 151 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Procedurally Defaulted Claims. Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation 164 are overruled. Signed by Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 09/30/2016. (dh1)
June 7, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 162 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - It is respectfully recommended that Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Procedurally Defaulted Claims (ECF No. 151) be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 6/24/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 6/7/2016. (kpf)
March 23, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 158 OPINION AND ORDER sustaining in part and overruling in part Petitioner's objections 148 , as set forth in this Opinion and Order. The Court adopts in part and overrules in part the Magistrate Judge's 07/27/15 Decision and Order 146 , as set forth in this Opinion and Order. Signed by Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 03/23/2016. (dh1) Modified on 3/24/2016 to change document type (kpf).
March 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 157 OPINION AND ORDER overruling 149 Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Decision and Order on Petitioner's Second Motion to Expand the Record and 155 Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate's Supplemental Op inion on Petitioner's Second Motion to Expand the Record. The Court agrees with and adopts the Magistrate Judge's 07/27/15 Decision and Order 145 and 10/19/15 Supplemental Opinion 154 . As it held in its 03/11/15 Opinion and Order 142 , this Court reserves the right to revisit Petitioner's motions to expand the record, including the instant motion. Signed by Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 03/22/2016. (dh1) Modified on 3/24/2016 to change document type (kpf).
October 6, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 129 SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON MOTIONS FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND TO EXPAND THE RECORD - The Magistrate Judge remains persuaded that Monroe's motions for evidentiary hearing and to expand the record were properly denied under Pinholster. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 10/6/2014. (kpf1)
September 25, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 127 SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 9/25/2014. (kpf1)
September 9, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 124 RECOMMITTAL ORDER: This case is before the Court on Petitioner's Objections 122 , 123 , to the Magistrate Judge's Decision and Order Denying Petitioner's Second Motion for Discovery 119 and Decision and Order Denying Petitioner� 39;s Motions to Expand the Record and for Evidentiary Hearing 120 . This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge with instructions to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations based on that analysis. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 09/09/2014. (dh1)
August 19, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 121 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, MOTIONS TO STAY AND AMEND - The Motion to Stay and Abey is DENIED without prejudice to its refiling after the Court determines whether or not to allow amendment of the Petition. Furthermore, the Motion to Amend is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal not later than September 10, 2014, with all the claims Monroe wishes to present in this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 8/19/2014. (kpf1)
August 18, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 119 DECISION AND ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 102 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 8/18/2014. (kpf1)
January 24, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 86 SCHEDULING ORDER - This Discovery due by 8/1/2013. With the consent of both parties made during the scheduling conference, the Court now sets August 1, 2013, as the deadline for completion of all permitted discovery. Counsel indicated their understan ding that production of documents and any court rulings on privilege matters will need to precede depositions which have been permitted and will schedule those events to make completion of discovery by August 1, 2013, feasible.Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 01/24/2013. (kf)
November 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 84 ORDER - The Warden's request for reciprocal discovery is GRANTED. Petitioner's counsel shall promptly determine whether they seek to withhold any of the sought materials on a claim of attorney-client communication privilege. If so, the ma terials shall be submitted to the Court for in camera inspection and Petitioner shall simultaneously file a privilege log. The Court has under advisement Petitioner's Motion to Substitute Counsel (Doc. No. 83). In support of that Motion, Petitio ner shall file, not later than November 30, 2012, Petitioner's written consent to the proposed substitution. Ms. Kinsley shall also promptly furnish the Court with a resume of proposed substitute counsel reflecting relevant experience. The Court notes that Mr. Komp consents to the proposed substitution. The discovery deadline (set in Doc. No. 82) is vacated. A new deadline will be set after substituted counsel has been able to acquaint himself with the file. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/16/2012. (kpf1)
September 21, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 82 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 9/21/2012. (kpf1)
February 3, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 73 SCHEDULING ORDER granting 71 Motion to Determine Deadline. In accordance with the prior scheduling order, Petitioner shall file his reply to the Answer not later than April 1, 2012. Any motion for discovery shall be filed not later than May 1, 2012 . Any motion for evidentiary hearing shall be filed not later than thirty days after the discovery cut-off or thirty days from the date when discovery is denied by the Magistrate Judge, whichever occurs later. Neitherparty may file a motion for summary judgment without prior Court permission. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 2/3/2012. (mdf1)
March 28, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 57 ORDER - Judge Watson has this date filed a final Opinion and Order on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 56). Therefore, in accordance with the Opinion and Order on scheduling entered by Judge Kemp on October 9, 2009, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Respondent shall file an answer/return of writ complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases not later than May 27, 2011. 2. Petitioner shall file a reply/traverse not later than sixty days after the answer is filed. 3. Any party may file a motion for discovery not later than thirty days after the reply is filed. 4. Any party may file a motion for evidentiary hearing not later than thirty days after discovery is denied or after the discovery cut-off, whichever is later. No party may file a motion for summary judgment herein without prior permission of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/28/2011. (kpf1)
July 9, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 45 ORDER APPOINTING NEW COUNSEL - The Court hereby appoints Attorney Jennifer Kinsley of the Court's Criminal Justice Act Death Penalty Panel as counsel to Petitioner and designates her as his trial attorney under S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 83.4. The Cour t further finds that Attorney Lawrence Komp, also a member of the Court's Criminal Justice Act Death Penalty Panel, is qualified to act as co-counsel in this case and he is hereby appointed to that position. Counsel are directed to counsel with predecessor counsel to obtain their files related to the case. Counsel are directed to prepare a budget for the litigation of this matter in consultation with the Sixth Circuit's CJA Case Budgeting Attorney, Robert Ranz. Following said consultat ion, counsel shall submit a budget to this Court, ex parte and under seal, not later than August 15, 2010. Attorneys Steven Nolder, David Stebbins, David Graeff, and Eric Allen are relieved of all further responsibility to represent Petitioner in this case as of the time and date of filing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 7/9/2010. (kpf1)
July 7, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 44 DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AND DENYING MOTION TO STAY WITHOUT PREJUDICE - This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's pro se Motion to Stay and to Substitute Counsel (Doc. No. 42) and David Stebbins� 39; Ex Parte Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (Doc. No. 43). The Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED and attorneys Steven Nolder, David Stebbins, David Graeff, and Eric Allen are, at Petitioner's request, relieved of all further responsibility to repre sent Petitioner in this case, effective as of the time the Court files an entry appointing new counsel, which is expected to occur within the next ten days. The Motion to Stay is denied without prejudice to its renewal when accompanied by a showing of good cause for delay and merit in the newly-made claims. The Court would suggest that Petitioner discuss any possible renewal of this motion for stay with new counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 7/6/2010. (kpf1)
September 8, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 34 OPINION and ORDER granting 19 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss procedurally defaulted claims as to the fourth, sixth, sub-part(A) of the eighth, first, and seventh grounds for relief. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 9/8/09. (jk)
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: Monroe v. Warden Ohio State Penitentiary
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Jonathon D. Monroe
Represented By: David Clark Stebbins
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 Ohio State Penitentiary
Represented By: Charles L Wille
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?