Hobbs v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, No. 1:2013cv00928 - Document 34 (S.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER FINDING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS MOOT 32 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 8/29/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Hobbs v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority Doc. 34 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI RYAN HOBBS, Petitioner, : - vs - Case No. 1:13-cv-928 District Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, : Respondent. DECISION AND ORDER FINDING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS MOOT This habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Proceedings in which he requests that judgment be delayed until September 17, 2018 (ECF No. 32). District Judge Black has now recommitted (ECF No. 33) Petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment for reconsideration in light of Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 30) and the Adult Parole Authority’s Response (ECF No. 31). Therefore the case will not be ripe for judgment by September 17, 2018. Despite the literal meaning of Petitioner’s Motion (to stay judgment until September 17), he may instead want consideration stayed until the Court has considered the various documents mentioned in his Motion. If that is his real meaning, he may renew the Motion, but the Court will not delay consideration pending receipt of the items mentioned unless: 1. Petitioner identifies what court hearings he intends to have transcribed, what arrangements he has made for transcription, and the relevance of those hearings to his present 1 Dockets.Justia.com Motion. 2. Petitioner has caused the Clerk to issue subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, filed copies of those subpoenas with the Court, and demonstrated the relevance of the documents he intends to subpoena. Regarding Petitioner’s plan to “transfer” records from Hobbs v. Faulkner, Case No. 1:17cv-441, no procedure exists for transferring the records of one case to another case. If there are documents in that case that Petitioner believes are relevant to a decision in this matter, he must move for leave to file them in this case and identify them by docket number from the prior case. August 29, 2018. 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.