Snowden v. Bracy, No. 4:2017cv00208 - Document 19 (N.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order denying as non-cognizable petitioner's motion to clarify. (Related Doc. 17 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr., on 8/2/2018. (S,MD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Snowden v. Bracy Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION WILLIAM SNOWDEN, JR., Plaintiff, v. CHARMAINE BRACY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:17 CV 0208 JUDGE JAMES G. CARR MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM H. BAUGHMAN, JR. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before me by referral1 is the pro se petition of William Snowden, Jr. for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.2 Here, Snowden has moved to clarify the record as to purported misstatements of the record by the State in its return of the writ3 and in this Court’s order of September 6, 2017,4 which denied Snowden’s motions for an evidentiary hearing and for immediate release on bond and which noted the State’s return of the writ. Regardless of any alleged lack of precision in any summary background reference, the exact terms of Snowden’s third ground for habeas relief have not been altered or amended in any way. Further, the fragmentary summary to which Snowden objects was 1 The matter was referred to me under Local Rule 72.2 by United States District Judge James G. Carr in a non-document order entered March 20, 2017. 2 ECF No. 1. 3 ECF No. 13. 4 ECF No. 16. Dockets.Justia.com simply contextual dicta contained in – and not the holding of – the ruling issued on September 6. Finally, neither Rule 59(e), which governs motions to alter or amend judgment, or Rule 60(b), which applies to motions for relief from judgment, are available as means by which a party may vacate dicta in a court decision.5 Thus, inasmuch as the present motion merely seeks to more precisely restate Snowden’s third ground for habeas relief, which ground Snowden asserts was not accurately summarized in the filings mentioned above, or seeks to entirely remove the prior language, the motion is denied as non-cognizable. Dated: August 2, 2018 s/ William H. Baughman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge 5 F.D.I.C. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 216 F.R.D. 422, 423 (E.D. Illinois 2003) (citation omitted). -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.
