MALIK ALLAH-U-AKBAR, fka Odraye G. Jones v. MARGARET BRADSHAW, Warden - Articles

All Content

MALIK ALLAH-U-AKBAR, fka Odraye G. Jones v. MARGARET BRADSHAW, Warden

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Oct 9, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Kathryn Bailey, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Katie Rose Talley, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Kathryn Bailey, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: Katie Rose Talley, Charles L. Wille, BRENDA S. Leikala, T. Elliot Gaiser, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): MOORE, COLE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In a prior appeal, this court granted Petitioner-Appellant Malik Allah-U-Akbar a conditional writ of habeas corpus, “vacating [his] death sentence unless the State of Ohio conducts a new penalty-phase proceeding within 180 days of remand.” Jones v. Bradshaw, 46 F.4th 459, 489 (6th Cir. 2022). The state did not comply with the writ. The district court then converted this conditional writ to an unconditional writ. The unconditional writ ordered the state “to vacate the death sentence imposed by the Ashtabula County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas . . . and unconditionally release Jones from custody no later than five business days from the date of entry of” the order entered on February 29, 2024. Jones v. Bradshaw, No. 1:03 CV 1192, 2024 WL 895153, at *11 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 29, 2024). The state did not fully comply with the unconditional writ until May 29, 2024, roughly ninety days after the unconditional writ was entered. In response, Allah-U-Akbar filed a motion for relief from the unconditional writ, and sought as a sanction for noncompliance an order barring the state from reprosecuting the death penalty. The district court denied this request on the merits. For the reasons that follow, although we agree with Allah-U-Akbar that we have jurisdiction over this appeal, we nevertheless AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Attachments: