Coleman v. Bradshaw
| Timothy L Coleman |
| Margaret Bradshaw |
| BCI Records Custodian |
| 3:2003cv00299 |
| October 29, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| Michael R Merz |
| Edmund A Sargus |
| Death Penalty - Habeas Corpus |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
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
221
JUDGMENT is entered pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed 03/30/2015. This case is CLOSED. (dh1)
|
|
Filing
215
NOTICE OF EX PARTE EVIDENTIARY HEARING - The ex-parte evidentiary hearing regarding Petitioner's dissatisfaction with his appointed counsel will commence Friday, April 11, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom #4, Fifth Floor Federal Building, 200 W. Second Street, Dayton, Ohio, before United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz. The court will issue, sua sponte, a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for Defendant's presence. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/20/2014. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
212
ORDER TO PETITIONER'S COUNSEL: This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's letter to Judge Sargus complaining of the conduct of his appointed counsel (Doc. No. 211). Colemans counsel shall respond thereto not later than March 20, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/10/2014. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
205
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 201) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (the Report, Doc. No. 198). Judge Sargus has recommitted the matter to the Magistrate Judge for reconsideration in light of the Objections (Doc. No. 202). Objections to R&R due by 7/22/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 7/5/2013. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
202
RECOMMITTAL ORDER concerning Petitioner's Objections 201 to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations 198 . This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge with instructions to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and Response and making recommendations based on that analysis. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 03/07/2013. (dh1)
|
|
Filing
198
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. The Court should grant a certificate of appealability on Grounds Two and Five, but otherwise deny a certificate. Objections to R&R due by 12/19/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/28/2012. (kpf1) Modified on 11/30/2012 to change date of filing and objection date (kpf1).
|
|
Filing
194
DECISION AND ORDER - Petitioner's Motion to Compel National CODIS Run of DNA Profile (Doc. No. 182) is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/19/2011. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
161
DECISION AND ORDER ON PRODUCTION OF BCI CASE CONVERSATION NOTES - Petitioner's Motion to Compel production of the Case Conversation Records is denied and BCI's responsive motion for protective order is granted. The Case Conversation Records will be scanned and filed under seal in the Court's ECF system. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 12/4/2009. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
159
SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/16/2009. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
155
ORDER TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION - During a telephone status conference on November 6, 2009, the Court learned that it was the expectation of the parties that the Court was to conduct an in camera inspection of the BCI Case Convers ation Notes in conjunction with the Privilege Log filed by BCI (Doc. No. 128). An inspection of the case file as transferred to the undersigned revealed no such documents. Upon inquiry, BCI counsel Maura Jaite indicated that BCI was still awaiting a n order for in camera inspection. It is hereby ORDERED that BCI produce those documents to the undersigned for in camera inspection not later than November 16, 2009. Not later than the same date, Petitioner may file any responses he has to the claim s of privilege made in the Privilege Log. The Warden and BCI may respond to any position on the claims of privilege taken by Petitioner not later than ten days after Petitioner files his response to the Privilege Log. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/6/2009. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
153
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER - In provide guidance for completing the case and to orient the Court, counsel must prepare and file by November 10, 2009, a joint status report listing all outstanding issues requiring the Court's decision and a propos ed schedule for the remaining steps necessary to bring the case to conclusion. After discovery is complete, either party may move for an evidentiary hearing within the parameters permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e). After any evidentiary hearing, both parties may brief the issues to be decided. The Magistrate Judge takes the position that evidence which could not be introduced because of the limitations in §2254(e) cannot be brought in by the alternative route of expanding the record. At least when the weight of evidence may depend on the credibility of witnesses, the Magistrate Judge strongly prefers live testimony to deposition testimony and to affidavits. All of this is said by way of announcing general preferences and is without prejudice to any rights either party may insist on to proceed differently. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 10/29/2009. (kpf1)
|
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
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.
