Hasan v. Ishee, No. 1:2003cv00288 - Document 132 (S.D. Ohio 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ON THE IMPACT OF CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/7/2011. (kpf1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON SIDDIQUE ABDULLAH HASAN, fka Carlos Sanders : Petitioner, Case No. 1:03-cv-288 : Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz -vsTODD ISHEE, Warden, : Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION ON THE IMPACT OF CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER This capital habeas corpus case is pending before Chief Judge Dlott on the Magistrate Judge s original Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 81) and Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 119). On April 4, 2011, the same day on which Petitioner filed his Objections (Doc. No. 122) to the Supplemental Report and Recommendations, the United States Supreme Court decided Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1388, 179 L. Ed. 2d 557 (2011). In his Response to the Objections (Doc. No. 123), the Warden relied primarily on Cullen and did not oppose Petitioner s request to brief the impact of that decision, which has now been done (Doc. Nos. 127, 128, 129). This Second Supplemental Report and Recommendations is filed solely to address the impact of Cullen. After considering the arguments of counsel, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Cullen does not prohibit an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner s actual innocence gateway argument for -1- avoiding procedural default. As the Court is aware, the Magistrate Judge s reading of the AEDPA has been more consistent with Justice Sotomayor s dissent (and Justice Alito s concurrence in part of that dissent) than with the majority opinion. That is, the Magistrate Judge has frequently held that evidence added to the record in federal habeas could be considered in determining whether a state court adjudication on the merits of a claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The Magistrate Judge s denial of an evidentiary hearing in this case was solely on the bases set forth in the two Reports and Recommendations. This Opinion should not be read or cited as agreeing in any other way with Petitioner s counsel s analysis of Cullen. June 7, 2011. s/ Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge -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.
