Opinion
2:22-cv-4423
07-22-2024
HOWARD E. MARTIN, III, Petitioner, v. TIM SHOOP, WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.
Sarah D. Morrison, Judge
ORDER
KAREN L. LITKOVITZ, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This pending habeas corpus matter is before the Court on two motions filed by Petitioner Howard E. Martin, III. One motion will be DENIED, and one will be GRANTED to the extent described below.
The first motion, a “Motion for Relief,” is incomprehensible. (Doc. 45). In it, Petitioner says he “is enacting an Easement of Five Million Dollars for Every Year that he is in Forced Durance after May 8, 2023” as “this is the Neocheating Date of Obscurity use[d] to Establish Unwarranted Oppression and Depravity of Justice[.]” (Id., PageID 1584). That date appears to be the date that LexisNexis reported that this case was resolved. (See Doc. 46). It is also the date the Undersigned recommended that the Court deny Petitioner's “Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody,” which was also filed in this case. (See Doc. 16). The Court denied the § 2255 motion on June 14, 2023. (See Doc. 22). Nothing about these orders is mentioned in Petitioner's new motion as far as the Undersigned can tell. (Doc. 45).
The motion instead appears concerned with the “combining” of Petitioner's habeas corpus and civil rights cases. (Id., PageID 1583-84). However, it does not appear that Petitioner's cases have been combined or consolidated. Some have been deemed related (see Doc. 20, 42), but each case is proceeding or was resolved separately. See generally S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 3.1(b) (describing when cases may be deemed related for purposes of “the orderly division of the business of the Court”). In short, the Undersigned cannot tell what Petitioner is seeking in his Motion for Relief and declines to speculate. The motion is therefore DENIED. (Doc. 45).
Petitioner's second motion is entitled “Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Doc. 46). In this single-page motion, Petitioner also refers to the “combining” of cases. He says he is seeking “clarity of this Matter.” (Id.). The Undersigned CONSTRUES this motion as one asking for the status of this habeas corpus case, No. 2:22-cv-4423, and/or the status of Petitioner's “objections” (Doc. 43, 44) to a related case memorandum (Doc. 42). This motion is GRANTED, as follows. The Undersigned CLARIFIES that:
1. Petitioner's § 2254 habeas corpus case, Case No. 2:22-cv-4423, is pending and is currently under consideration by the Court.
2. Petitioner's § 2255 motion to vacate, which was filed in this case, was denied on June 14, 2023. (Doc. 22).
3. The related but separate civil case of Martin v. Mundy, Case No. 2:24-cv-327, was dismissed with prejudice on June 6, 2024.
4. The other case cited by Petitioner, Case No. 1:24-cv-237, is entitled Fikes v. Warden and does not appear to involve Petitioner.
5. The related but separate habeas corpus case of Martin v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution, Case No. 1:23-cv-205, was dismissed on June 16, 2023.
6. Petitioner's cases have not been consolidated, so his objections to their “combining” appear to be moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.