Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

07-776 - Elmore v. Houk

Download Files


Document in Context
07-776 - Elmore v. Houk
May 22, 2008
PDF | More
ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS. Petitioner's Motion (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED. Petitioner's counsel shall keep this Court currently apprised of the status of the state court proceedings. All future dates set in the Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 10) are VACATED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/22/2008. (gh1, )
November 16, 2010
PDF | More
ORDER STRIKING MOTION FOR DISCOVERY - This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court sua sponte upon the filing of Petitioner's First Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 48). In the Amended Scheduling Order in this case, September 1, 2010, was set as the deadline for filing motions for discovery (Doc. No. 33). On Respondent's Unopposed Motion (Doc. No. 37), the Court extended that time to November 1, 2010. However, the instant Motion was filed two weeks later without leave of court and without the consultation with opposing counsel required by S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.3. Accordingly, Petitioner's First Motion for Discovery is STRICKEN. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/16/2010. (kpf1)
December 10, 2010
PDF | More
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 48 Motion for Discovery. Discovery cut-off set for 2/28/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 12/10/2010. (mrm0)
September 14, 2012
PDF | More
DECISION AND ORDER - It is ORDERED: 1. The Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 61) is GRANTED. Petitioner shall file an amended petition embodying the new claim forthwith. Respondent's duty to respond is postponed pending exhaustion of the new claim in the Ohio courts. 2. The Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 62) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. No further proceedings will be held in this Court on the new claim until exhaustion of that claim in the Ohio courts. Although this Court cannot reach a final decision on this case until all claims have been exhausted, Petitioner has not yet shown good cause for staying proceedings here unrelated to the new claim. Therefore if Petitioner wishes to have all proceedings in this Court stayed, he must file a new motion to that effect. 3. The parties are ordered to keep this Court currently advised of the status of the state court proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 9/14/2012. (kpf1)
March 24, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER DISSOLVING STAY - The stay herein is DISSOLVED and this case is returned to the active docket. Petitioner's counsel are reminded of their deadline for a motion for protective order of twenty days from today's date (April 13, 2016)(See ECF No. 106). Counsel for the parties shall confer and file with the Court a proposed schedule for adjudication of this case not later than April 4, 2016. Proposed deadlines from both parties shall be included in the same document. That is, there shall be a jointly filed document, whether or not there is complete consensus on dates for deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 3/24/2016. (kpf)