Nickelson v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Filing 75

ORDER denying 74 Motion to Hold Defendant's Counsel in Contempt. The Application for an order to show cause is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 02/24/2012. (kf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
LE SHAWN NICKELSON,
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 1:11-cv-334
:

District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vsWarden, Chillicothe Correctional
Institution,
:
Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Application for an Order to require
Respondent’s counsel Gregory Hartke to show cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt
of court (Doc. No. 74).
Petitioner tendered this document to the Clerk with the caption Nickelson v. Hartke and
without the above case number. The undersigned ordered the Application docketed in this case. If,
instead, Petitioner wished to file a new civil case, he is required to comply with the Prison Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 by paying the full filing fee, as well as preparing the summons and copies of the
complaint for service. Any new civil case related to the habeas corpus allegations in this case would,
in all probability, be consolidated with this case.
Petitioner’s Application claims that Mr. Hartke is in contempt of court by not submitting
sufficient evidence with the Return of Writ to show there sufficient evidence to support a conviction.

-1-

Nickelson relies on that portion of Magistrate Judge Litkovitz’s Order for an answer that refers to
what must be filed if there is a habeas corpus claim that the conviction is against the manifest weight
of the evidence. No such claim is made in the Petition. (See quotation of Grounds for Relief in
Report and Recommendations, Doc. No. 37, PageID 1066-1067.) In any event, this case did not go
to trial so there was never a need for the prosecutor to submit any evidence. Petitioner misunderstands
Judge Litkovitz’s Order and his own claims.
Petitioner also seeks an order to show cause on the claim that Mr. Hartke has committed fraud
on this Court by filing Exhibit 69. As the Magistrate Judge has repeatedly advised the Petitioner, the
fact that the document is not time-stamped by the clerk of courts does not mean that it is not genuine
and in fact the Magistrate Judge has repeatedly explained why it appears to be genuine.
The Application for an order to show cause is denied.
February 24, 2012.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-