Scott v. Warden, Mansfield Correctional Institution

Filing 7

SECOND AMENDED ORDER FOR ANSWER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 10/1/2012. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
AARON SCOTT,
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 3:12-cv-146
:

District Judge Walter Herbert Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vsWARDEN, Mansfield Correctional
Institution,
:
Respondent.

SECOND AMENDED ORDER FOR ANSWER
Having discussed with other Magistrate Judges in the District the procedures adopted in
the Amended Order for Answer (Doc. No. 6), the Court hereby VACATES the following two
paragraphs of that Order:
Secondly, the answer should group all arguments directed to a
particular claim for relief together. In the past, it has often been
the practice of the Attorney General’s Office to argue affirmative
defenses (e.g., procedural default, lack of exhaustion, statute of
limitations) separately from merits arguments. This requires the
reader to flip back and forth within the argument unnecessarily.
Finally, the parties are reminded that S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(3)
applies to pleadings in habeas case. If the pleading or motion
paper is in excess of twenty pages, the filer must include “a
combined table of contents and a succinct, clear and accurate
summary, not to exceed five (5) pages, indicating the main sections
of the memorandum, the principal arguments and citations to
primary authority made in each section, as well as the pages on
which each section and any sub-sections may be found.”

The requirement to file the state court record first so that it is serially paginated with

1

PageID numbers remains in place. The undersigned will monitor the use of this practice for a
number of months to determine its utility and invites the Attorney General’s Office to advise the
Court of its actual experience with the practice.
In the Amended Order for Answer, the Court suggested the Attorney General’s Office
consider adopting this practice at other locations of court and was advised that that Office
believes there is a requirement at Cincinnati that exhibits in the state court record be filed
separately. The undersigned has consulted with Magistrate Judge Bowman who is unaware of
the provenance of that requirement; Magistrate Judge Litkovitz was not available for
consultation. It is respectfully suggested that the Attorney General’s Office consult with both
Magistrate Judges in Cincinnati to determine if this requirement is any longer applicable.
The Answer and Return in this case remain due October 19, 2012.

October 1, 2012.

s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2