Opinion
Case No. 3:04-cv-174.
December 8, 2010
ORDER
Petitioner, a prisoner sentenced to death by the State of Ohio, has pending before the Court a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court sua sponte to direct Petitioner to submit a revised proposed budget.
Petitioner last submitted a proposed budget on May 30, 2007. (Doc. # 67.) The Court is of the view that several intervening changes make necessary the filing of a revised proposed budget. First, the status of Petitioner's counsel has changed. Since the time that Petitioner submitted his last proposed budget, attorney Carol Wright changed employment from the Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal Public Defender's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal Public Defender's Office for the Southern District of Ohio. The nature of Ms. Wright's employment factored significantly in the formation of Petitioner's proposed budget. Second, since the time that Petitioner submitted his last proposed budget, the manner in which litigation budgets for death penalty habeas corpus cases are developed, submitted, and approved has changed in the Sixth Circuit. Capital habeas corpus petitioners are now directed to develop a proposed budget, in four phases, in consultation with CJA Budgeting Attorney Robert Ranz before submitting that budget to the district court. Once the district court approves the proposed budget, the district court forwards the budget to the Sixth Circuit for approval.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DIRECTS Petitioner to consult with CJA Budgeting Attorney Robert Ranz in developing a budget and then to file that proposed budget, ex parte and under seal, in this Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: Dec. 8, 2010