Bethel v. Warden Ohio State Penitentiary

Filing 31

NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT - Oral Argument on the pending Motions to Dismiss is hereby set for Monday, August 6, 2012, beginning at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom #4, Fifth Floor Federal Building, 200 W. Second Street, Dayton, Ohio, before United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 7/19/2012. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
LARRY GAPEN,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 3:08-cv-280
District Judge Walter Herbert Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

DAVID BOBBY, Warden,
Respondent.

:

ROBERT BETHEL,
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:10-cv-391
:

-vs-

District Judge Michael R. Barrett
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

DAVID BOBBY, Warden,
:
Respondent.

BOBBY T. SHEPPARD,
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 1:12-cv-198
:

-vs-

District Judge Gregory L. Frost
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

NORM ROBINSON, Warden,
:
Respondent.

NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT

ORAL ARGUMENT on the pending Motions to Dismiss is hereby set for Monday, August

6, 2012, beginning at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom #4, Fifth Floor Federal Building, 200 W. Second
Street, Dayton, Ohio, before United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz.
The Magistrate Judge is particularly concerned to hear argument on how the added claims for relief
purport to state a claim on which habeas corpus relief can be granted. That is, what is Petitioner’s
constitutional theory upon which relief granted on any of the added claims would prevent his
execution entirely, rather than merely preclude his execution pursuant to the currently-adopted Ohio
execution protocol? To put that question in another way, how (in detail) are the constitutional
claims now made in these cases different from the constitutional claims made in In re: Ohio
Execution Protocol, Case No. 2:11-cv-1016, pending before Judge Frost. The Magistrate Judge does
not regard this question as answered or precluded by the grant of the motions to amend: the fact that
a lethal injection claim is cognizable in habeas corpus per Adams v. Bradshaw, 644 F.3d 481 (6th
Cir. 2011), does not imply that these claims actually state a claim for relief.

July 19, 2012
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge