Pulley v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
CHARLES FRANCIS PULLEY, III,
Petitioner, 	: 	Case No. 3:25-cv-00144
- vs - 	District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
WARDEN,
Madison Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
This habeas corpus case was brought pro se by Petitioner Charles Francis Pulley, III, to
obtain relief from his convictions in the Montgomery County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas for
murder, felonious assault, involuntary manslaughter, and endangering children. (Verdict, State
Court Record, ECF No. 7, Exhibit 20). It is before the Court on Petitioner’s “response to order to
show cause.” (“Response,” ECF No. 16).
Petitioner filed two prior Motions to Stay (ECF Nos. 11, 12) which the Magistrate Judge
denied because they were not signed, although Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 requires that every filing in federal
court be signed by the filer. Because Pulley is proceeding pro se, all filings require his personal
signature. Because the stay had been entered by the assigned District Judge, the undersigned gave
Petitioner an opportunity to show cause why the stay should be continued (Order to Show Cause,
ECF No. 14), filed February 5, 2026, and requiring a showing of good cause by March 2, 2026.
Case: 3:25-cv-00144-WHR-MRM Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
The deadline for a reply had already passed, but the Court sua sponte extended that deadline to the
same date, March 2, 2026. By March 11, 2026, five weeks later, the Court had received nothing
further 	from 	Petitioner, 	so 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	filed 	a 	Report 	and 	Recommendations
recommending dismissal of the Petition as barred by the statute of limitations (ECF No. 15).
Petitioner’s instant response was received and docketed on March 17, 2026.
To ensure that this case is decided on a complete record, the Report and Recommendations
is WITHDRAWN. Additionally, Respondent is ordered to supplement the State Court Record by
filing forthwith Judge Gerald Parker’s decision denying Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File a
Motion for New Trial which the Court understands has been appealed. Finally, Petitioner has never
responded to the State’s argument that merits review is barred by the statute of limitations. If he has a
response, he may file a signed memorandum stating that response not later than March 31, 2026.
March 18, 2026.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00144-WHR-MRM Doc #: 17 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>