Grieco v. Warden, Ohio Reformatory for Women, No. 3:2021cv00193 - Document 17 (S.D. Ohio 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING - Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary hearing is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal if the requirements of Pinholster are met. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 8/5/2021. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Grieco v. Warden, Ohio Reformatory for Women Doc. 17 Case: 3:21-cv-00193-TMR-MRM Doc #: 17 Filed: 08/05/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 199 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON JESSICA LYNN GRIECO, Petitioner, : - vs - Case No. 3:21-cv-193 District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz TERI BALDAUF, Warden, Ohio Reformatory for Women, : Respondent. DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING This habeas corpus case is before the Court on the Petitioner’s Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 14). Petitioner cites the correct standard for an evidentiary hearing in an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 where a federal prisoner brings a collateral attack against her or his federal sentence. Id. at PageID 190. However, this is an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 wherein Petitioner seeks relief from her sentence by a state court. She relies on authority for such hearings from before adoption of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214)(the "AEDPA"), to wit, Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 313 (1963). However, the Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the AEDPA to prohibit evidentiary hearings in § 2254 cases until and unless the petitioner has established under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) that the state court’s decision is based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of evidence 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case: 3:21-cv-00193-TMR-MRM Doc #: 17 Filed: 08/05/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 200 presented to those state courts. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011). Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary hearing is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal if the requirements of Pinholster are met. August 5, 2021. 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.
