Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Monroe v. Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division, Columbus

August 17, 2017

JONATHON D. MONROE, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Ohio State Penitentiary, Respondent.

          Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. Chief Judge.

          DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION TO STAY AND HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE

          Michael R. Merz, United States Magistrate Judge.

         This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner's Second Motion to Stay and Hold Case in Abeyance (ECF No. 167). The Warden opposes the stay (ECF No. 168) and Petitioner has filed a Reply in support (ECF No. 169). At the Court's request (ECF No. 170), both parties filed supplemental memoranda (ECF Nos. 171, 172).

         A motion to stay is a non-dispositive pretrial matter within the initial decisional authority of an assigned Magistrate Judge, subject to appeal to the assigned District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a).

         Petitioner seeks a stay so that he can present to the Ohio courts “new evidence and new claims which were only uncovered during discovery in this habeas case.” (Motion, ECF No. 167, PageID 8241.)

         The claims Petitioner seeks to exhaust were first set forth in his Reply as follows:

Petitioner will proceed under Ground 1 under a claim of prosecutorial misconduct based on the facts and evidence contained in paragraphs 100-A through 100-O of the First Amended Petition.
Petitioner will proceed under Ground 8(A) under a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on the facts and evidence contained in paragraphs 181-A through 181-O.
Petitioner will proceed under Ground 8(B) under claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on the facts and evidence contained in paragraphs 194-A through 194-GG, 195-HH, 200-A, 204-A through 204-C, 205-A, 207-A, 234-A through 234-T.
Petitioner will proceed under Ground 9(A) under a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the penalty phase based on the facts and evidence contained in paragraphs 253-A through 253-L.
Petitioner will proceed under Ground 9(B) under a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the penalty phase based on the facts and evidence contained in paragraphs 263-A through 263-P. Petitioner will proceed under Ground 9(E) under a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the mitigation phase based on the facts and evidence contained in paragraphs 344-A through 344-C.
Petitioner will proceed under Ground 9(F) under a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the mitigation phase based on the facts and evidence contained in paragraph 355(A).
Petitioner will proceed under Ground 10 under a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on the facts and evidence contained in paragraphs 383-A through 383-K.
Petitioner will proceed under Ground 10 under a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel based on the facts and evidence contained in ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.