McKnight v. Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary

Filing 114

ORDER TO RE-FILE AMENDED PETITION WITH RECORD REFERENCES - To make use of the electronic state court record in the further adjudication of this case, it is hereby ORDERED that, not later than June 1, 2013, Petitioner re-file the Amended Petition with record references to each place where the state court record is referred to, identified with the PageID number for that record reference. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/9/2013. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
GREGORY McKNIGHT
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:09-cv-059
:

-vs-

Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

DAVID BOBBY, Warden,
:
Respondent.

ORDER TO RE-FILE AMENDED PETITION WITH RECORD
REFERENCES
This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court sua sponte upon examination of
Petitioner’s 242-page Amended Petition (Doc. No. 101).
In the Preface to the Petition, McKnight states:
Petitioner Gregory McKnight uses the following abbreviations to
reference the state-court proceedings:
Transcript of trial proceedings: (Tr. ____).
Post-conviction exhibits submitted with the state-court petition:
(PC Ex. ____).
Supplemental Hearing on Motion to Suppress: (Supp. Hrg. ____).
Trial court’s sentencing decision: (Sent. Dec. ____).
Application to Reopen Direct Appeal pursuant to Supreme Court
Practice Rule XI(6): (App. to Reopen ____).
All state-court post-conviction exhibits are incorporated into this
pleading by reference.
(Amended Petition, Doc. No. 101, PageID 2869).
In numerous places in the Amended Petition, however, McKnight quotes from the state
court proceedings without citing any place in the state court record from which he is quoting,

thus making it very laborious for the Court to verify the quotations. See, for example, PageID
2871, purportedly quoting from the Indictment, but giving no record reference whatsoever;
PageID 2872-2878, purporting to quote from the merit brief on direct appeal to the Ohio
Supreme Court, but giving no record reference.
Upon commencing the Factual Background section of the Amended Petition (PageID
2885), McKnight begins citing pages of the trial transcript. During the course of that recitation,
he lapses back into referencing things that happened in the state courts which are reflected in the
record, but without giving any record reference. For example,
On August 8, 2002, the trial court granted McKnight’s Motion to
Dismiss Capital Components. The trial court reasoned in its entry
[Reference?] that the financial considerations of Vinton County
posed an unacceptable risk that could affect McKnight’s due
process rights. This decision by the trial court generated a
substantial amount of local, and even national, publicity. On
August 14, 2002, the State sought reconsideration of the trial
court’s entry dismissing the capital specifications. [Reference?}
The trial court subsequently sustained the State’s motion to
reconsider [Reference?}.

(Amended Petition, Doc. No. 101, PageID 2889).

On the same page, McKnight alleges

prejudicial media coverage and cites “(Exhibit A-43-108).” There are no exhibits attached to the
Amended Petition and the citation is of no use in finding the exhibits in the record.
At various other points in the Amended Petition, McKnight cites to, e.g., (Hrg., March
26, 2002, Tr. 1-7). This citation, and others like it, do not adequately assist the reader in finding
the cited portion of the state court record.
Fortunately, electronic filing in this Court now makes it possible to give much more
helpful citations to the record. As the Court noted in ordering an answer to the Amended
Petition, “[w]hen 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.” (Order, Doc. No. 103, PageID 3107-3108). Having ordered the States to re-file the
record to obtain PageID numbers, the Court went on to order that all papers filed in this case
after the electronic record “shall include record references to the PageID number.” Id. at 3108.
As counsel are aware, this requirement parallels to newly-adopted rules for record references to
PageID numbers in filings in the Sixth Circuit.
To make use of the electronic state court record in the further adjudication of this case, it
is hereby ORDERED that, not later than June 1, 2013, Petitioner re-file the Amended Petition
with record references to each place where the state court record is referred to, identified with the
PageID number for that record reference.
May 9, 2013.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge