Dixon v. Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Defendant: Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Petitioner: William R. Dixon
Case Number: 3:2011cv00150
Filed: May 6, 2011
Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Dayton Office
County: MONTGOMERY
Presiding Judge: Sharon L Ovington
Presiding Judge: Thomas M Rose
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 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
January 30, 2025 Opinion or Order Filing 61 DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 1/30/25. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
January 21, 2025 Opinion or Order Filing 55 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment 54 should be denied. Objections to R&R due by 2/4/2025. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 1/21/2025. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
August 5, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 48 TRANSFER ORDER - Pursuant to In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45 (6th Cir. 1997), the Clerk is ordered to TRANSFER this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for that Court's determination of whether Dixon may proceed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 8/5/2024. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
March 22, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 33 ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 28 ); MOTION TO REQUEST MORE TIME (Doc. 30 );AND MOTION TO REQUEST APPEALABLE ORDER (Doc. 31 ). Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 3/22/13. (kje1)
February 11, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 23 JUDGMENT with Attached Notice of Disposal. Signed on 02/11/13. (pb1)
January 18, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 20 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 1/18/13. (kje1)
January 7, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Based on the foregoing analysis, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice and this case be TERMINATED upon the Court's docket.Reasonable j urists would not disagree with the recommended dispositions on all grounds for relief. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Therefore, if Petitioner seeks leave to appeal, the Court RECOMMENDS that Petitioner be DENIED a certificate of appealability on all claims presented here, and also be DENIED leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Objections to R&R due by 1/25/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 1/7/13. (kje1)
October 17, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER - On October 15, 2012, the Court received an extensive mailing from William Dixon Petitioner in this habeas corpus matter addressed to the undersigneds chambers instead of the Clerks office. The mailing has not been reviewed by the undersigne d. As is the usual practice, the mailing is being referred to the Clerk for docketing as Correspondence from Petitioner.Because the documents contain Petitioners personal identifiers, the filing shall be placed UNDER SEAL, with access given to case p articipants only.Having reviewed the docket sheet of this matter, the Court notes that Petitioner is represented by counsel. Recognizing that the mailing is from Petitioner himself, and not from his counsel, the Court has some concern that counsel may not have seen the documents prior to being mailed to the Court. Counsel may, of course, now review the filing via CM-ECF.Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 10/17/2012. (kf)
April 5, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER Granting Respondent's Motion to Quash Subpoena 13 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 4/5/12. (mdf1)
May 9, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 2 ORDER: 1. On or before June 23, 2011, Respondent shall file an Answer in this case conforming to the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing §2254 Cases; and 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve the Petition and a copy of this Ord er by electronic or regular mail on Respondent and the Attorney General of Ohio, c/o Assistant Attorney General Diane Mallory, Corrections Litigation, 150 E. Gay Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215-6001. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 5/9/11. (bac1)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Dixon v. Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: William R. Dixon
Represented By: William Frank Oswall, Jr.
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 ]
Defendant: Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
Represented By: Diane Duemmel Mallory
Represented By: Hilda Rosenberg
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?