Buckland v. Warden Pickaway Correctional Institution

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
RICHARD E. BUCKLAND,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, Pickaway Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:24-cv-735
Judge Michael W. McFarland
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
ORDER
Petitioner, an inmate in state custody at the Pickaway Correctional Institution, has
pending before the Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(Doc. 1). This matter is before the Court for consideration of unopposed Petitioner’s Second
Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply (Doc. 10) and Petitioner’s Motion Requesting
Expansion of the Record Pursuant to Habeas Rule 7 (Doc. 11), which Respondent opposes (Doc.
12). For the following reasons Petitioner’s motion for an extension is GRANTED, but his
motion for expansion of the record is DENIED, without prejudice to his refiling it, because it is
unsigned in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
Motion for Extension
On May 28, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion seeking a 14-day extension to file his reply in
support of his habeas corpus petition. The reply was due on May 29, 2025. Respondent did not
oppose the motion and Petitioner in fact filed his Reply on June 12, 2025. For good cause shown,
because Respondent did not object, and because no prejudice will result from the short extension,
Case: 1:24-cv-00735-MWM-PBS Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/02/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Petitioner’s Motion for Extension (Doc. 10) is GRANTED NUNC PRO TUNC.
Motion for Expansion of the Record
Petitioner seeks to expand the record with a letter from his direct appeal attorney
apprising Petitioner of the state appellate court’s decision affirming Petitioner’s conviction and
the end of appellate counsel’s representation. (Doc. 11, PageID 686; Doc. 11-1). Petitioner seeks
to add the letter in response to Respondent’s argument in the Return of Writ (Doc. 7) that
Petitioner had failed to properly present and exhaust his claims in the state courts. The letter,
Petitioner explains, “is relevant to the Court’s determination as to whether counsel sufficiently
apprised Petitioner of any subsequent proceedings necessary to ensure his claims are properly
preserved for any subsequent review.” (Doc. 11, PageID 685).
Respondent opposes Petitioner’s motion (Doc. 12), but the motion is not properly before
the Court in its present form because it is unsigned.
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires “[e]very pleading, written
motion, and other paper [to] be signed … by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. The
paper must state the signer’s address, e-email address, and telephone number.” Generally, Rule
11 requires a handwritten signature. See, e.g., Coleman v. Golden, No. 3:25-cv-833, 2026 WL
19387, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 1, 2026) (“‘As Rule 11(a) is now framed, … the requirement of a
signature [indicates], as a signature requirement commonly does, and as it did in John Hancock’s
day, a name handwritten (or a mark handplaced) (quoting Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757,
764 (2001); Jacquelyn S. Jordan Trust v. City of Franklin, 3:22-cv-326, 2022 WL 1507196, at *1
(M.D. Tenn. May 12, 2022) (“Th[e] Rule requires a handwritten signature, not a typed name.”).
If a party does not promptly correct an unsigned paper after the omission is called to his or her
Case: 1:24-cv-00735-MWM-PBS Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/02/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
attention, “[t]he court must strike the unsigned paper ….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).
Here, Petitioner’s motion for expansion of the record (and certificate of service) are not
signed. Although the motion includes a signature line with Petitioner’s name, inmate number,
and address, he did not provide a handwritten signature on the signature line. Nor did he provide
a signature on the certificate of service. Out of an abundance of caution in view of Petitioner’s
pro se status and because any attendant delay will be minor, the Court will give Petitioner an
opportunity to sign and refile the instant motion.
Petitioner is therefore ORDERED, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, to
refile his motion for expansion, signed, in compliance with the signature requirements set forth
in Federal Rule Civil Procedure 11. Failure to do so will result in the unsigned motion being
stricken pursuant to Rule 11.
Conclusion
Petitioner’s motion for extension of time (Doc. 10) is GRANTED NUNC PRO TUNC.
Petitioner’s motion for expansion of the record (Doc. 11) is DENIED without prejudice to
refiling, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail to
Petitioner the unsigned motion (Doc. 11) and a copy of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 2, 2026 	s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:24-cv-00735-MWM-PBS Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/02/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>