From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sayles v. Warden, London Correctional Institution

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Aug 30, 2011
Case No. 1:11-cv524 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 30, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 1:11-cv524.

August 30, 2011


ORDER


Petitioner has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 with this Court upon payment of the $5.00 filing fee. Petitioner also has filed a motion requesting permission to file the petition (Doc. 2), as well as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3). Both motions (Docs. 2, 3) are DENIED as moot, because the action was initiated and the petition was filed upon payment of the requisite filing fee. No further Order is required to commence this proceeding.

For good cause appearing, it is ORDERED that pursuant to Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, respondent shall, within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order, file a return of writ responding to the allegations of the petition. The return of writ should include the following:

1. Certify the true cause of petitioner's detention.

2. Allege specifically whether or not petitioner has previously filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in federal court, giving the names of the courts in which petitioner has sought release, together with any citations to such prior action. Indicate whether or not the instant petition is successive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

3. Allege as to each ground raised by petitioner whether he has exhausted his state remedies, including any post-conviction remedies, as well as his rights of appeal both from the judgment of conviction and from any adverse judgment or order in any post-conviction proceeding.

4. Allege whether petitioner's claims are barred by the one-year statute of limitations established in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

5. Allege, pursuant to Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), whether petitioner has been previously afforded in the courts of Ohio an opportunity for full and fair litigation of any of his claims now brought by way of habeas corpus.

6. Allege, pursuant to Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982), whether any of petitioner's claims are barred by a state law procedural default.

7. Show cause — supported by a detailed answer to petitioner's allegations, and by records, transcripts, affidavits, and other documentary evidence — why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue.

8. If petitioner has alleged that his conviction was against the weight of the evidence, cite those pages of the trial transcript upon which respondent will rely to establish that there was sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

9. Indicate what transcripts of pretrial, trial, sentencing, and post-conviction proceedings are available, when they can be furnished, and what proceedings have been recorded but not transcribed.

10. Attach such portions of the transcripts as respondent deems relevant.

11. Allege whether or not a hearing is necessary and whether or not it is permitted under the criteria of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 313 (1963) as amended by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2).

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court serve a copy of this Order and the petition by mail on the respondent and the Ohio Attorney General. This service shall constitute notice to the Attorney General.

Petitioner may, not later than twenty-one (21) days after the answer is filed, file and serve a response to the return of writ. If respondent files a motion to dismiss, petitioner's time to file a memorandum in opposition will likewise be twenty-one days from service, as provided in S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: August 29, 2011

Exhibit


Summaries of

Sayles v. Warden, London Correctional Institution

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Aug 30, 2011
Case No. 1:11-cv524 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 30, 2011)
Case details for

Sayles v. Warden, London Correctional Institution

Case Details

Full title:TONY SAYLES, Petitioner v. WARDEN, LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: Aug 30, 2011

Citations

Case No. 1:11-cv524 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 30, 2011)