Raglin v. Mitchell
Filing
203
ORDER granting 200 Motion to Stay- Raglins lethal injection claims are STAYED to and including March 17, 2014. Not later than that date,Raglin must move to amend to add any claims cognizable in habeas corpus which he has regarding Ohios current lethal injection protocol.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 2/7/2014. (mrm3)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
WALTER RAGLIN,
:
Petitioner,
Case No. 1:00-cv-767
:
District Judge Michael R. Barrett
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
-vsBETTY MITCHELL, Warden,
:
Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING STAY; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Stay
Consideration of his Lethal Injection Claims (Doc No. 200) until sixty days after the next (after
December 4, 2013) execution (Doc No. 200, PageID 2373). As grounds therefor, Raglin notes
that Ohio has replaced the execution protocol which formed the basis of Raglin’s Thirty-Ninth and
Fortieth Grounds for Relief with a new execution protocol which Raglin asserts will give rise to
new but as yet unformulated habeas claims. Id. at PageID 2372.
The Warden opposes the stay (Doc. No. 201), but the Magistrate Judge is persuaded by the
decision in Sheppard v. Robinson, Case No. 13-3900 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 2013) that a stay is
appropriate.
Because Raglin concedes that his Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth Grounds for Relief “are no
longer viable,” (Id.), it is respectfully recommended that those claims be dismissed without
prejudice as moot.
1
Further consideration of Raglin’s lethal injection claims is STAYED to and including
March 17, 2014, the sixtieth day after the execution of Dennis McGuire. Not later than that date,
Raglin must move to amend to add any claims cognizable in habeas corpus which he has regarding
Ohio’s current lethal injection protocol. The Court expressly rejects, as it has before in other
capital habeas cases, Raglin’s argument that he can postpone any such motion to amend until the
statute of limitations runs on any new claims.
February 7, 2014.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen days
because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P.
5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and
shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and
Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party=s objections
within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).
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?