Wilson v. Warden Madison Correctional Institution

Filing 3

ORDER FOR AMENDED PETITION - It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner file an amended petition not later than August 1, 2013, which sets forth each claim of constitutional violation he is making and the facts which support it, along with the information for each such claim as is required by the form (i.e., whereit was raised before, was an appeal taken, etc.). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 7/2/2013. (kf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ANTHONY L. WILSON,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 3:13-cv-217
District Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

DEB TIMMERMAN-COOPER,
Warden, London Correctional
Institution,
:
Respondent.

ORDER FOR AMENDED PETITION

This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by Petitioner Anthony L. Wilson, is before the
Court for initial review pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Petitioner has
used the standard form for § 2254 cases, but has not included any actual claims in the body of his
Petition. Instead, at each place where there is space for a Ground for Relief, he has written “See
Attached Form for Details.” (See PageID 18, 19, 21, 22.) However, when one turns to the
attached pages, Mr. Wilson has merely reproduced verbatim the claims he made in various
places in the state courts.
A federal habeas corpus court is not an appeals court for trial court or appellate court
error made in the state courts. Rather, this Court has the authority only to consider whether
Petitioner is confined as the result of violation of his federal constitutional rights. As a pro se
litigant, Petitioner is entitled to a liberal reading of his pleadings, but that does not mean the
Court is required to guess as to what claims a petitioner is making.

It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner file an amended petition not later than August 1,
2013, which sets forth each claim of constitutional violation he is making and the facts which
support it, along with the information for each such claim as is required by the form (i.e., where
it was raised before, was an appeal taken, etc.)
When the amended petition is filed, the Court will be able to complete its initial rev iew
under Rule 4.
July 2, 2013.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge