Sheppard v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Filing 63

ORDER denying 62 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 7/10/15. (kn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
BOBBY T. SHEPPARD,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 1:12-cv-198
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

NORMAN ROBINSON, Warden,
Respondent.

ORDER
Petitioner, a prisoner sentenced to death by the State of Ohio, has pending before this
Court a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court for
consideration of Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate Deadline to File Amended Traverse. (ECF No.
62.)
Pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s June 2, 2015 Notation Order, Petitioner has until and
including July 31, 2015 to file an Amended Traverse. In light of Respondent’s intention to
oppose the instant motion (ECF No. 62, at Page ID # 773), the immediacy of the deadline, the
promulgation of amendments to Ohio’s execution protocol on June 29, 2015 (Case No. 2:11-cv1016, ECF No. 521, Notice of Revised 01-COM-11 dated June 29, 2015), and the decision of the
United States Supreme Court in Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955, 2015 WL 2473454 (U.S. Jun. 29,
2015), the Court VACATES the June 2, 2015 Notation Order giving Petitioner until and
including July 31, 2015 to file his Amended Traverse.
Petitioner states in the instant motion that he “will file a Second Amended and
Supplemental Petition no later than August 3, 2015.” (ECF No. 62, at Page ID # 773.) The

1

Court construes that as a motion for leave to amend and DENIES it on the ground that it
references a superseded execution protocol, to wit: the protocol dated January 9, 2015.
Petitioner shall have until and including August 3, 2015 to file a new motion for leave to
amend his petition, accompanied by a complete proposed amended petition. In the memorandum
in support, Petitioner must address the impact of Glossip on the Sixth Circuit precedent upon
which this Court has continually relied for authority to allow method-of-execution claims to be
litigated in habeas corpus: specifically, Adams v. Bradshaw, 644 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2011).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2