Anderson v. Hudson, No. 5:2008cv00601 - Document 11 (N.D. Ohio 2011)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying re 10 Motion for relief filed by William L. Anderson. Judge Donald C. Nugent on 10/11/11. (E,P)

Download PDF
Anderson v. Hudson Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION WILLIAM L. ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. WARDEN BRADSHAW, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:08 cv 601 JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant, William Anderson’s Motion for Relief from Judgment and Re-opening of Petitioner pursuant to Civ. R. P.60(A) and Fed. Crim. R. P. Rule 36. (ECF #10). For the reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s Motion is hereby, DENIED. Petitioner filed a habeus corpus petition in March of 2008, without having exhausted his state court remedies. The Court granted a conditional stay that required him to provide updates on the state court proceedings every sixty days. Petitioner never filed any updates. That petition was dismissed for failure to prosecute in October of 2008. In 2009 Petitioner re-filed his writ for habeas corpus under a separate case number as a successive petition. (Case No. 5:09 CV 671). That petition was considered and denied, and the Court of Appeals denied Mr. Anderson’s application for a certificate of appealability. (ECF # 28, 33). Mr. Anderson filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, which was denied. (ECF #29, 30). Mr. Anderson has also previously filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b) under this case number. That motion was also denied. (ECF #7). Dockets.Justia.com Petitioner has had his opportunity to present his legal and factual arguments to the Court, and those arguments were not convincing. Nothing in his most recent motion changes the reasoning that supported these prior decisions. All of the facts and legal principles underlying his claims have been considered and addressed. Mr. Anderson’s most recent reiteration of his dissatisfaction with the result offers no relevant information that would alter that outcome. Petitioner’s motion (ECF #10) is DENIED. /s/ Donald C. Nugent DONALD C. NUGENT United States District Judge DATED: October 11, 2011 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.