Russell v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution

S.D. Ohio

Russell v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution

DecidedOctober 14, 2020

Docket3:15-cv-00331

StatusUnknown

This text of Russell v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution (Russell v. Warden, Marion 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

Russell v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution, (S.D. Ohio 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

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

JAMES A. RUSSELL,

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:15-cv-331

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

LYNEAL WAINWRIGHT, Warden,

: Respondent. ORDER DISSOLVING CONDITIONAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND CLOSING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET

On May 26, 2020, in obedience to the Mandate of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court issued a Conditional Writ of Habeas Corpus which commanded respondent to release Petitioner from custody unless the Ohio Second District Court of Appeals for Montgomery County granted Petitioner a new appeal in which he was permitted to litigate an assignment of error claiming that his convictions for murder and aggravated robbery should have been merged under Ohio Revised Code § 2941.25 (ECF No. 72). The Court now sua sponte takes judicial notice1 of the fact that in its Case No. 24443 the Second District has satisfied the Conditional Writ by granting Petitioner a new appeal on June 30, 2020.2

1 Public records and government documents, including those available from reliable sources on the Internet, are subject to judicial notice. United States ex rel Dingle v. BioPort Corp., 270 F. Supp. 2d 968, 972 (W.D. Mich. 2003). A federal district court is permitted to take judicial notice of another court’s website. Graham v. Smith, 292 F. Supp. 2d 153, 155, n.2 (D. Me. 2003); Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 323 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821 (E.D. Mich. 2004). 2 Docket in Case No. CA 24443 on line at www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us, visited October 14, 2020. Accordingly, the Conditional Writ having been satisfied, it is hereby ORDERED that the Conditional Writ be dissolved and this case be terminated on the docket records of this Court. The Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to The Honorable Michael Tucker, Presiding Judge of the Ohio Second District Court of Appeals, at 41 North Perry St., Dayton, Ohio.

October 14, 2020 *s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________ Thomas M. Rose 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 AT DAYTON

JAMES A. RUSSELL,

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:15-cv-331

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

LYNEAL WAINWRIGHT, Warden,

: Respondent. ORDER DISSOLVING CONDITIONAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND CLOSING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET

On May 26, 2020, in obedience to the Mandate of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, this Court issued a Conditional Writ of Habeas Corpus which commanded respondent to release Petitioner from custody unless the Ohio Second District Court of Appeals for Montgomery County granted Petitioner a new appeal in which he was permitted to litigate an assignment of error claiming that his convictions for murder and aggravated robbery should have been merged under Ohio Revised Code § 2941.25 (ECF No. 72). The Court now sua sponte takes judicial notice1 of the fact that in its Case No. 24443 the Second District has satisfied the Conditional Writ by granting Petitioner a new appeal on June 30, 2020.2

1 Public records and government documents, including those available from reliable sources on the Internet, are subject to judicial notice. United States ex rel Dingle v. BioPort Corp., 270 F. Supp. 2d 968, 972 (W.D. Mich. 2003). A federal district court is permitted to take judicial notice of another court’s website. Graham v. Smith, 292 F. Supp. 2d 153, 155, n.2 (D. Me. 2003); Ward v. Wolfenbarger, 323 F. Supp. 2d 818, 821 (E.D. Mich. 2004). 2 Docket in Case No. CA 24443 on line at www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us, visited October 14, 2020. Accordingly, the Conditional Writ having been satisfied, it is hereby ORDERED that the Conditional Writ be dissolved and this case be terminated on the docket records of this Court. The Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to The Honorable Michael Tucker, Presiding Judge of the Ohio Second District Court of Appeals, at 41 North Perry St., Dayton, Ohio.

October 14, 2020 *s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________ Thomas M. Rose United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Russell v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-warden-marion-correctional-institution-ohsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack