Suntoke v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution, No. 2:2015cv01354 - Document 37 (S.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 34 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 8/31/2016. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Suntoke v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution Doc. 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION KALI S. SUNTOKE, CASE NO. 2:15-CV-01354 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers Petitioner, v. WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER Petitioner has filed a Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 34) of this Court’s denial of his Motion to Request the State to Produce Records of Various Transcripts and Documents of Court Records (ECF No. 19) and Motion to Order the Respondent to Supply to the Court and to the Petitioner the Complete Medical History and Cancer Report (ECF No. 20). Opinion and Order (ECF No. 33.) Petitioner again argues that documents, including a copy of the transcript of the April 8, 2013, hearing at which the trial court denied his request for a continuance, if it exists, a transcript of grand jury proceedings, his medical records, and copies of allegedly withheld police investigative reports which, he alleges, contain unspecified information establishing his innocence, should be made a part of the record before this Court. For the reasons already discussed, however, this Court remains unpersuaded that Petitioner has established good cause for his requests under Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules Governing Section 22545 Cases. Petitioner has failed to raise any grounds for reconsideration of this Court’s decision. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 34) therefore is DENIED. Dockets.Justia.com IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: August 31, 2016 _______s/James L. Graham__________ JAMES L. GRAHAM United States District 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.