Sanders v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
DEANGELO SANDERS,
Petitioner, : Case No. 1:25-cv-550
- vs - 	District Judge Michael R. Barrett
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
WARDEN, Madison Correctional
Institution,
:
Respondent.
ORDER
This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by Petitioner DeAngelo Sanders, is before the
Court on Petitioner’s Motions for Assignment of a Schedule (ECF No. 11) and Appointment of
Counsel (ECF No. 12).
The Magistrate Judge has already set a schedule for the pleadings. Respondent’s
Answer/Return of Writ and the State Court Record are now due to be filed by December 8, 2025
(See ECF No. 10). In accordance with the Order for Answer, Petitioner’s Reply/Traverse will
be due to be filed twenty-one days later. If the Return is served by mail, Petitioner will
have an additional three days to file as provided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6.
Any party’s time to respond to a motion is twenty-one days after it is filed. The party who
made the motion is entitled to fourteen days after the motion is opposed to file a reply
memorandum in support.
Case: 1:25-cv-00550-MRB-MRM Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/25/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Any time a Magistrate Judge acts on a matter, the parties have fourteen days to file
objections with the District Judge. However, the Court declines to “bunch” objections times on
different decisions. Some decisions are inherently pre-trial – e.g. a motion for discovery. Such
motions must be decided before the Court reaches a decision on the merits.
Realizing that habeas petitioners have limited access to legal resources, the Court has
usually been liberal in granting extensions of time, but they must be requested on an individual
basis.
Regarding appointment of counsel, the Court recognizes that indigent habeas petitioners
are eligible for appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, the Criminal Justice Act.
However, this is a District in which there are a number of capital habeas corpus cases, for whom
counsel must be appointed. 	Congress has not appropriated sufficient funds to compensated
appointed counsel in non-capital cases and the Court cannot compel counsel to serve without
compensation. Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S.
296, 300 (1989). Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.
November 25, 2025.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00550-MRB-MRM Doc #: 13 Filed: 11/25/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>