Olds v. Dormire

Filing 65

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motions docketed as numbers 36, 43, 52, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, and 64 are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on 6/23/2010. (RJD)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ROBERT NATHANIEL OLDS, Petitioner, vs. DAVE DORMIRE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case number 4:09cv1782 CAS TCM ORDER Petitioner, Robert Nathaniel Olds, seeks 28 U.S.C. § 2254 relief from a decision denying him release on parole. In response to an order of the Honorable Charles A. Shaw, now Senior United States District Court Judge, to show cause why Petitioner should not be granted the relief he seeks, Respondent argues the action should be dismissed as successive, untimely, or without merit. Petitioner has since twice been granted leave to file an amended petition. Respondent is not required, however, to answer these petitions unless so ordered. See Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondent has not yet been ordered to respond to the amended petitions. Consequently, Petitioner's various requests for an entry of default will be denied. Also to be denied are his requests for entry of a final judgment, his motion for leave to file a motion to testify before the court, and his motion for reconsideration of the Court's March 30, 2010, order. His motion titled "Motion to Amend Petition" also challenges the Court's denial of a default judgment. It too will be denied. Moreover, Petitioner is directed not to file any further motions for a default judgment until such time as Respondent may be ordered to answer an amended petition and the time for such answer to be filed has passed. For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's motions docketed as numbers 36, 43, 52, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, and 64 are DENIED. /s/ Thomas C. Mummert, III THOMAS C. MUMMERT, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated this 23rd day of June, 2010. -2-

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?