Suntoke v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Filing
91
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 2/20/2019. (srb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
KALI S. SUNTOKE,
Petitioner,
:
- vs -
Case No. 2:15-cv-1354
District Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
Warden,
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
:
Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OBJECTIONS
This habeas corpus case is before the Court on the pro se Motion of Petitioner to extend to
and including March 27, 2018, his time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Supplemental
Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 90).
Petitioner initiated this case pro se on April 22, 2015, by asking the Court to appoint
counsel (ECF No. 1). From then through November 14, 2018, Suntoke litigated this case pro se.
On the latter date, attorney Eric Allen entered his appearance, well after the Magistrate Judge had
filed an initial Report and Recommendations on the merits on August 3, 2018 (ECF No. 70). After
two extensions of time, Mr. Allen filed Objections on Mr. Suntoke’s behalf, Judge Graham
recommitted the case, and the undersigned filed the Supplemental Report on December 20, 2018
(ECF No. 80). Mr. Allen filed two motions for extension, the second of which was only granted
in part because of the manner in which it was made (ECF No. 87). When Allen had filed no
1
objections by the deadline, District Judge Graham adopted the Supplemental Report and dismissed
the case on February 14, 2019.
Proceeding once again pro se, Petitioner seeks another five weeks to file Objections. He
asserts he never received a copy of the Supplemental Report “either from the attorney or this Court
and was totally unaware till very recently of the same.” (ECF No. 90, PageID 2285). He alleges
difficulties communicating with his attorney and “humbly requests this Court to request the Clerk
to send Petitioner copies of all documents filed in this Court.” Id. at PageID 2286.
When a litigant chooses an attorney to represent him in a case, he designates that attorney
as his agent for the conduct of the case. If through negligence or application of his professional
judgment, an attorney omits to do something, the client as the principal of this agent is responsible
for the attorney’s actions. When Mr. Allen entered the case on behalf of Mr. Suntoke, the Court
was generous with extensions of time to allow him to become familiar with the case. But when he
failed to file objections by the last deadline the Court set, the Court dismissed the case.
Because judgment has already been entered the Court cannot extend the time to object. If
Petitioner believes the Supplemental Report contains legal or factual error, he can file a motion to
amend the judgment. Any such motion must be filed by March 16, 2019; the Court does not
have the power to extend that time. If instead the Petitioner wishes to appeal to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals, that must be done by filing a notice of appeal in this Court by March 16, 2019.
Because this is a habeas corpus case, Petitioner requires a certificate of appealability to appeal.
This Court denied a certificate of appealability in the final judgment, so Petitioner will have to
seek a certificate from the Court of Appeals. Petitioner is advised that the filing fee for an appeal
is $505. If Petitioner wishes to obtain copies of all documents filed in this case, he can do so by
request to the Clerk and prepayment of the copy fee at $.50 per page (current estimate $1,143.00).
2
The Motion for Extension is DENIED. The Clerk is ordered to serve a copy of this Order
on the Petitioner personally by mail.
February 20, 2019.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?