Bradford v. Warden, Ohio State Penitentiary, 1:18cv215. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20180830824
Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 16, 2018
Summary: RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO THE PETITIONER'S TRAVERSE KAREN L. LITKOVITZ , Magistrate Judge . The parties filed their initial pleadings. ECF 32, Respondent's answer/return of writ. ECF 39, Petitioner's traverse. Because of new matter set out in the petitioner's traverse that requires amplification, respondent moves the Court to permit the filing of the following reply to the petitioner's traverse. The Court's order does not explicitly permit a reply to the petitioner's traver
Summary: RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO THE PETITIONER'S TRAVERSE KAREN L. LITKOVITZ , Magistrate Judge . The parties filed their initial pleadings. ECF 32, Respondent's answer/return of writ. ECF 39, Petitioner's traverse. Because of new matter set out in the petitioner's traverse that requires amplification, respondent moves the Court to permit the filing of the following reply to the petitioner's traverse. The Court's order does not explicitly permit a reply to the petitioner's travers..
More
RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO THE PETITIONER'S TRAVERSE
KAREN L. LITKOVITZ, Magistrate Judge.
The parties filed their initial pleadings. ECF 32, Respondent's answer/return of writ. ECF 39, Petitioner's traverse.
Because of new matter set out in the petitioner's traverse that requires amplification, respondent moves the Court to permit the filing of the following reply to the petitioner's traverse. The Court's order does not explicitly permit a reply to the petitioner's traverse, hence respondent moves to Court to allow the attached reply. Given his litigation history, the petitioner will most likely want to respond to the motion.
Source: Leagle
