Suntoke v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Filing
37
OPINION AND ORDER denying 34 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 8/31/2016. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
KALI S. SUNTOKE,
CASE NO. 2:15-CV-01354
JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner has filed a Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 34) of this Court’s denial of
his Motion to Request the State to Produce Records of Various Transcripts and Documents of
Court Records (ECF No. 19) and Motion to Order the Respondent to Supply to the Court and to
the Petitioner the Complete Medical History and Cancer Report (ECF No. 20). Opinion and
Order (ECF No. 33.)
Petitioner again argues that documents, including a copy of the transcript of the April 8,
2013, hearing at which the trial court denied his request for a continuance, if it exists, a transcript
of grand jury proceedings, his medical records, and copies of allegedly withheld police
investigative reports which, he alleges, contain unspecified information establishing his
innocence, should be made a part of the record before this Court. For the reasons already
discussed, however, this Court remains unpersuaded that Petitioner has established good cause
for his requests under Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules Governing Section 22545 Cases. Petitioner has
failed to raise any grounds for reconsideration of this Court’s decision.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 34) therefore is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 31, 2016
_______s/James L. Graham__________
JAMES L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?