Barron v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution

S.D. Ohio

Barron v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution

DecidedFebruary 21, 2024

Docket1:23-cv-00591

StatusUnknown

This text of Barron v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution (Barron v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barron v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution, (S.D. Ohio 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

David Barron, : : Case No. 1:23-cv-591 Petitioner, : : Judge Susan J. Dlott v. : : Order Vacating February 14, 2024 Order Warden, Madison Correctional : and Judgment Institution, : : Defendant.

On January 11, 2024, the Court issued an Order Deferring Ruling on the Report and Recommendation for Thirty Days to give Petitioner one final chance to correctly file a habeas corpus petition. (Doc. 10.) Then, on February 14, 2024, when it appeared that Barron had abandoned his case by failing to comply with the Court’s admonition in the Order Deferring Ruling, the Court issued an Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Action for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 11.) The Clerk of Court issued the Judgment that same day. (Doc. 12.) However, on February 15, 2024, the Clerk of Court received and filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas Petition”) from Petitioner David Barron. (Doc. 13.) The Habeas Petition was signed by Barron under penalty of perjury and placed in the prison mailing system on February 8, 2024. (Id. at PageID 48.) “Under the prison mailbox rule, a habeas petition is considered filed when the prisoner provides the petition to prison officials for filing.” Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 673 F.3d 452, 456 (6th Cir. 2012). Therefore, the Court must treat Barron’s Habeas Petition as if it was filed on February 8, 2024, which is within the thirty-day deadline set by the Court in its January 11, 2024 Order Deferring Ruling. In hindsight, the Court should not have dismissed this case for failure to prosecute. The February 14, 2024 Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Action (Doc. 11) and the Judgment (Doc. 12) are VACATED. The case shall proceed forward on the docket of the Undersigned Judge and Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

S/Susan J. Dlott Susan J. Dlott United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

David Barron, : : Case No. 1:23-cv-591 Petitioner, : : Judge Susan J. Dlott v. : : Order Vacating February 14, 2024 Order Warden, Madison Correctional : and Judgment Institution, : : Defendant.

On January 11, 2024, the Court issued an Order Deferring Ruling on the Report and Recommendation for Thirty Days to give Petitioner one final chance to correctly file a habeas corpus petition. (Doc. 10.) Then, on February 14, 2024, when it appeared that Barron had abandoned his case by failing to comply with the Court’s admonition in the Order Deferring Ruling, the Court issued an Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Action for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 11.) The Clerk of Court issued the Judgment that same day. (Doc. 12.) However, on February 15, 2024, the Clerk of Court received and filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas Petition”) from Petitioner David Barron. (Doc. 13.) The Habeas Petition was signed by Barron under penalty of perjury and placed in the prison mailing system on February 8, 2024. (Id. at PageID 48.) “Under the prison mailbox rule, a habeas petition is considered filed when the prisoner provides the petition to prison officials for filing.” Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 673 F.3d 452, 456 (6th Cir. 2012). Therefore, the Court must treat Barron’s Habeas Petition as if it was filed on February 8, 2024, which is within the thirty-day deadline set by the Court in its January 11, 2024 Order Deferring Ruling. In hindsight, the Court should not have dismissed this case for failure to prosecute. The February 14, 2024 Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Action (Doc. 11) and the Judgment (Doc. 12) are VACATED. The case shall proceed forward on the docket of the Undersigned Judge and Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

S/Susan J. Dlott Susan J. Dlott United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Barron v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barron-v-warden-madison-correctional-institution-ohsd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack