Snowden v. Bracy

Filing 19

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying as non-cognizable petitioner's motion to clarify. (Related Doc. 17 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr., on 8/2/2018. (S,MD)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM SNOWDEN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARMAINE BRACY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:17 CV 0208
JUDGE JAMES G. CARR
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

Before me by referral1 is the pro se petition of William Snowden, Jr. for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.2 Here, Snowden has moved to clarify the record
as to purported misstatements of the record by the State in its return of the writ3 and in
this Court’s order of September 6, 2017,4 which denied Snowden’s motions for an
evidentiary hearing and for immediate release on bond and which noted the State’s return
of the writ.
Regardless of any alleged lack of precision in any summary background reference,
the exact terms of Snowden’s third ground for habeas relief have not been altered or
amended in any way. Further, the fragmentary summary to which Snowden objects was

1

The matter was referred to me under Local Rule 72.2 by United States District
Judge James G. Carr in a non-document order entered March 20, 2017.
2

ECF No. 1.

3

ECF No. 13.

4

ECF No. 16.

simply contextual dicta contained in – and not the holding of – the ruling issued on
September 6. Finally, neither Rule 59(e), which governs motions to alter or amend
judgment, or Rule 60(b), which applies to motions for relief from judgment, are available
as means by which a party may vacate dicta in a court decision.5
Thus, inasmuch as the present motion merely seeks to more precisely restate
Snowden’s third ground for habeas relief, which ground Snowden asserts was not
accurately summarized in the filings mentioned above, or seeks to entirely remove the
prior language, the motion is denied as non-cognizable.

Dated: August 2, 2018

s/ William H. Baughman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

5

F.D.I.C. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 216 F.R.D. 422, 423 (E.D. Illinois 2003)
(citation omitted).
-2-