Campbell v. Jenkins

Filing 16

DECISION AND ORDER - Based on the reasoning in those decisions, Campbell's Motion for Leave to Amend is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal not later than October 13, 2015. If Campbell does move again to amend, he must state plainly how t he claims he wishes to plead here differ from those claims he has pled in In re Ohio Lethal Injection Protocol Litig., Case No. 2:11-cv-1016. In addition, this is Campbell's second in time habeas corpus petition directed to his capital convictio n and death sentence. The first petition was dismissed with prejudice and that judgment was affirmed on appeal. Campbell v. Bradshaw, 674 F.3d 578 (3/21/2012); cert deniedsub nom Campbell v. Robinson, 133 S. Ct. 527 (2012). If Campbell moves to amend further, hemust state his position as to why this is not a second or successive habeas petition on which thisCourt is without jurisdiction absent prior permission from the circuit court of appeals. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 9/21/2015. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
ALVA E. CAMPBELL, JR.,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 2:15-cv-1702
District Judge Walter Herbert Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

CHARLOTTE JENKINS, Warden,
Chillicothe Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to
File an Amended Petition (ECF No. 12). The Warden opposes the Motion (ECF No. 13) and
Campbell has filed a reply in support (ECF No. 14).
Shortly after the Motion became ripe, the case was transferred to District Judge Rice and
the undersigned pursuant to S. D. Ohio Crim. R. 57.2(h) because of that was the random judicial
assignment of Campbell’s first habeas corpus case related to his capital sentence, Case No. 2:05cv-193 (Order, ECF No. 15).
Motions to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 are non-dispositive under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A) and thus come within the decisional authority of Magistrate Judges in the first
instance, in referred cases.
In a series of decisions earlier this month, the Magistrate Judge has considered what
changes have been wrought in the jurisprudence of challenges to lethal injection executions by
the Supreme Court’s decision in Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2738 (2015). See
1

Landrum v. Robinson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116914 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 2, 2015); Turner v.
Hudson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119882 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 9, 2015); Franklin v. Robinson, 2015
U.S. Dist. (S.D. Ohio Sept. 10, 2015); Raglin v. Mitchell, Case No. 1:00-cv-767 (ECF No. 243).
Based on the reasoning in those decisions, Campbell’s Motion for Leave to Amend is
DENIED without prejudice to its renewal not later than October 13, 2015. If Campbell does
move again to amend, he must state plainly how the claims he wishes to plead here differ from
those claims he has pled in In re Ohio Lethal Injection Protocol Litig., Case No. 2:11-cv-1016.
In addition, this is Campbell’s second in time habeas corpus petition directed to his
capital conviction and death sentence. The first petition was dismissed with prejudice and that
judgment was affirmed on appeal. Campbell v. Bradshaw, 674 F.3d 578 (3/21/2012); cert denied
sub nom Campbell v. Robinson, 133 S. Ct. 527 (2012). If Campbell moves to amend further, he
must state his position as to why this is not a second or successive habeas petition on which this
Court is without jurisdiction absent prior permission from the circuit court of appeals.

September 21, 2015.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2