Barton v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Institution

Filing 38

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING - This case is before the Court on consideration of Respondent's Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 37), calling the Court's attention to Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. ___, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2616 (Apr. 4 , 2011). The Magistrate Judge agrees that his Decision and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 29) requires reconsideration in light of Cullen. It is accordingly ordered that Petitione r file any memorandum he wishes the Court to consider on the impact of the Cullen decision not later than April 29, 2011. Respondent may reply not later than seven calendar days after Petitioner's memorandum is filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 4/19/2011. (kpf1)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON THOMAS BARTON, : Petitioner, Case No. 1:09-cv-353 : District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz -vsWARDEN, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, : Respondent. ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING This case is before the Court on consideration of Respondent’s Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 37), calling the Court’s attention to Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. ___, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 2616 (Apr. 4, 2011). The Magistrate Judge agrees that his Decision and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 29) requires reconsideration in light of Cullen. It is accordingly ordered that Petitioner file any memorandum he wishes the Court to consider on the impact of the Cullen decision not later than April 29, 2011. Respondent may reply not later than seven calendar days after Petitioner’s memorandum is filed. April 19, 2011. s/ Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge -1-

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?