Smith v. Warden Franklin Medical Center

Filing 7

SCHEDULING ENTRY - In the body of the Petition in this case, Petitioner takes the position that this is not a second or successive habeas corpus petition, despite the prior filing of Case No. 1-99-CV-832. The Attorney General was given an opportunity to respond to that position and opposes it (Doc. No. 6). Petitioner may file any response he wishes the Court to consider to the Attorney General's position not later than March 30, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/26/2012. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
KENNETH SMITH,
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 1:12-cv-196
:

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vsFRANCISCO PINEDA, Warden,
:
Respondent.

SCHEDULING ENTRY

In the body of the Petition in this case, Petitioner takes the position that this is not a second
or successive habeas corpus petition, despite the prior filing of Case No. 1-99-CV-832. The
Attorney General was given an opportunity to respond to that position and opposes it (Doc. No. 6).
Petitioner may file any response he wishes the Court to consider to the Attorney General’s
position not later than March 30, 2012.

March 26, 2012.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

J:\Death Penalty\Smith v. Mitchell\Smith v. Pineda Ord 02.wpd

-1-