Sawyer v. Hudson, No. 1:2007cv03804 - Document 26 (N.D. Ohio 2009)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order This Court directs the petitioner to submit, within twenty days hereof, a clearer explanation for his apparent position that this action is not ripe to proceed. Following receipt thereof this Court will be in a better position to determine whether the action should be stayed, dismissed, or neither (Doc. # 23 ). IT IS SO ORDERED. Magistrate Judge David S. Perelman on 7/31/09. (G,S) Modified to create link on 8/4/2009 (B, B).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sawyer v. Hudson Doc. 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Floyd M. Sawyer, Petitioner v. Stewart Hudson, Warden, Respondent : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:07CV3804 Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. Magistrate Judge David S. Perelman MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner has moved to stay this action “in order for the plaintiff to determine whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this habeas corpus action due to hte [sic] lower courts [sic] failure to make a final appealable order in compliance with the Ohio Supreme Court [sic] decision in STATE V. BAKER (2008) 119 Oh. St.3d 197, were [sic] the plaintiff’s journal entry fails to set forth the manner of conviction as mandated by Ohio Crim. Rule 32(c). In the alternative this court should dismiss this case without prjudice [sic] until this jurisdictional matter is taken care of in and by the lower trial court.” In response to this motion respondent maintains that there is no question as to the court’s jurisdiction, as petitioner is in custody pursuant to a judgment of a court situated in Medina County, Ohio, so that “the Court should deny Petitioner’s motion to hold this case in abeyance. Instead, the Court should grant his alternative request to dismiss this case without prejudice.” The problem is that this Court is at a loss to understand the basis of petitioner’s motion, and suspects that his reference to determining whether this court has jurisdiction is reflective of a lack Dockets.Justia.com of understanding of that concept. This Court is also concerned that a dismissal, even without prejudice, could present successive petition considerations if the action was refiled. Therefore, this Court will direct the petitioner to submit, within twenty days hereof, a clearer explanation for his apparent position that this action is not ripe to proceed. Following receipt thereof this Court will be in a better position to determine whether the action should be stayed, dismissed, or neither. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/DAVID S. PERELMAN United States Magistrate Judge DATE: July 31, 2009 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
