Justice v. DeMartino

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

WILLIAM JUSTICE, II,

Petitioner, Case No. 3:24-cv-298

vs.

WARDEN, LONDON CORRECTIONAL District Judge Michael J. Newman INSTITUTION, Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 16) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (2) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 16); (3) DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. Nos. 9, 16); (4) GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 34) AND ACCEPTING PETITIONER’S REPLY AS IT IS CURRENTLY FILED (Doc. No. 34-1); (5) OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 24) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; (6) ADOPTING THE SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 22); AND (7) DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING RESOLUTION OF HIS PETITION (Doc. No. 21) ______________________________________________________________________________

Petitioner William Justice, II brings this case pro se seeking a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Doc. No. 8. The case is before the Court upon a first Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson (Doc. No. 14), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Judge Jolson recommends that this Court deny Petitioner’s motion for a default judgment because such relief is unavailable in a § 2254 habeas corpus proceeding. Doc. No. 14 at PageID 2163-64. Petitioner timely filed objections to

1 The Court liberally construes Petitioner’s pro se filings in his favor. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); see also Mayes v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., No. 3:22-cv-313, 2024 WL 3163957, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 25, 2024). the Report and Recommendation. Doc. Nos. 9, 16. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed Judge Jolson’s analysis and conclusion, and has considered de novo all filings in this matter, including Petitioner’s objections. Upon such careful review of the foregoing, the Court determines that Judge Jolson’s Report and Recommendation applies the correct law, is well reasoned, and should be ADOPTED. Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED, the first Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, and Petitioner’s motion for a default judgment is DENIED. The case is also before the Court upon Judge Jolson’s second Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 22), which addresses Petitioner’s motion for release pending resolution of his petition (Doc. No. 21). Judge Jolson recognizes that although federal courts have the authority to grant bail to a habeas petitioner pending a decision on the merits of the petition, such relief is granted

only in “the extraordinary case.” Doc. No. 22 at PageID 2592-93. Judge Jolson recommends denying Petitioner’s motion because “Petitioner has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances to justify his release on bail or bond pending a decision on the merits of the petition.” Id. at 2583. Petitioner timely filed objections to this second Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 24); Respondent filed a response (Doc. No. 33); and Petitioner filed a motion for leave to file a reply (Doc. No. 34). The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for leave to file a reply in support of his objections, and accepts his reply as it is now docketed. Doc. No. 34-1. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed Judge Jolson’s analysis and conclusion, and has considered de novo all relevant filings in this matter, including Petitioner’s objections and his reply. Upon such careful review of the foregoing, the

Court determines that the Judge Jolson’s second Report and Recommendation applies the correct law, is well reasoned, and should be ADOPTED. Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED, the second Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, and Petitioner’s motion

for release on bail is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. August 19, 2025 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge