Hughbanks v. Hudson

Filing 158

ORDER DISSOLVING STAY AND SETTING SCHEDULE - Respondent has notified the Court that the Ohio Supreme Court has declined to exercise jurisdiction over Petitioner's appeal from denial of his petition for post-conviction relief related to his Third and Tenth Claims for Relief. Those remedies having now been exhausted, the stay is DISSOLVED.Not later than July 1, 2015, Respondent shall file an amended return of writ conforming to the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases.Petitioner may, not later than twenty-one days after the answer is filed, file and serve a reply to the answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/22/2015. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
GARY HUGHBANKS,
Petitioner,

:

Case No. 1:07-cv-111

- vs Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
STUART HUDSON, Warden,
:
Respondent.

ORDER DISSOLVING STAY AND SETTING SCHEDULE

Respondent has notified the Court that the Ohio Supreme Court has declined to exercise
jurisdiction over Petitioner’s appeal from denial of his petition for post-conviction relief related
to his Third and Tenth Claims for Relief (Notice, Doc. No. 157, citing State v. Hughbanks, Ohio
Supreme Court Case No. 2013-0629)). This case was stayed pending the exhaustion of state
court remedies. Those remedies having now been exhausted, the stay is DISSOLVED.
The currently pending petition in this case is the Amended Petition filed May 22, 2012
(Doc. No. 134). Not later than July 1, 2015, Respondent shall file an amended return of writ
conforming to the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing '2254 Cases. Specifically,
said answer shall respond to each allegation made in the Amended Petition, raise any affirmative
defense relied on by Respondent, and state whether, from Respondent's perspective, any claim in
the Petition is barred by a failure to exhaust state remedies, a procedural bar, non-retroactivity, or
a statute of limitations.

1

Before filing the answer, the Respondent shall re-file1 those portions of the state court
record needed to adjudicate this case. When the record is filed electronically, the Court’s
CM/ECF filing system will affix a unique PageID number to each page of the record, displayed
in the upper right-hand corner of the page. All papers filed in the case thereafter by either party
shall include record references to the PageID number. Prior to filing the state court record, the
Warden’s counsel shall ensure that any borders on parts of the record (typically, court reporter
transcripts) do not obscure the PageID number when the page is filed. The record shall be
indexed by insertion of “bookmarks” in the .pdf version of the state court record uploaded to the
Court’s CM/ECF system which display each exhibit and the name of that exhibit in the record.
As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, a complete copy of the answer and state court record
with the PageID numbers and “bookmarks” must be served on Petitioner at the time of filing.
Petitioner may, not later than twenty-one days after the answer is filed, file and serve a
reply to the answer.
May 22, 2015.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

1

The original return was filed before the Court began requiring electronic filing of state court records in habeas
corpus cases.

2