Gillispie v. Warden, London Correctional Institution

Filing 125

ORDER IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANDATE - The Sixth Circuit filed the Mandate on December 5, 2014, and transmitted it to this Court where it has now also been filed (Doc. No. 124). Issuance of the mandate returns jurisdiction of the case to this Court. In obedience to the Mandate, the Court confirms that it "is without further jurisdiction in [this] case." Gillispie, 771 F.3d at *15. The Clerk shall terminate this case on the docket of this Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 12/10/2014. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ROGER DEAN GILLISPIE,
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 3:09-cv-471
:

-vs-

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

DEB TIMMERMAN-COOPER, Warden,
:
Respondent.

ORDER IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANDATE

On November 13, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed
this Court’s denial of Respondent’s Motion to Vacate the Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Gillispie v. Warden, 771 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2014). This Court formally notified the parties and the
Montgomery County Common Pleas Court of that decision on November 17, 2014 (Doc. No.
123), but noted “Because the mandate has not yet issued, this Court does not presently have
jurisdiction of the case so as to enter an order in compliance with the Sixth Circuit’s opinion.” Id.
at PageID 4964.
The Sixth Circuit filed the Mandate on December 5, 2014, and transmitted it to this Court
where it has now also been filed (Doc. No. 124). Issuance of the mandate returns jurisdiction of
the case to this Court. In obedience to the Mandate, the Court confirms that it “is without further
jurisdiction in [this] case.” Gillispie, 771 F.3d at *15.

The Clerk shall terminate this case on the

docket of this Court.
This Order has no impact on the preclusive effect of the Decision and Order Granting the
1

Writ which the Sixth Circuit observed is left “to the Ohio courts, in the first instance, to determine
. . .” Id. Nor, of course, does this Order preclude a new petition for habeas corpus relief should
Gillispie be re-convicted on re-trial in the Common Pleas Court. Such a petition would not
require Circuit Court permission to proceed as a second or successive petition because it would be
directed at a new judgment of the Common Pleas Court. Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320
(2010).

December 10, 2014.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

Copy: The Honorable Steven K. Dankof, Sr.

2