Henderson v. Bunting

Filing 14

Memorandum Opinion and Order that Petitioner Paul S. Henderson's 11 Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED and Henderson's 13 Motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh on 2/18/2015. (M,De)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

PAUL S. HENDERSON,
Petitioner
v.
JASON BUNTING,
Warden,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14CV2257

JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN
(Mag. Judge Kenneth S. McHargh)

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

McHARGH, MAG. JUDGE
The petitioner Paul S. Henderson (“Henderson”) has filed a petition pro se for
a writ of habeas corpus, arising out of his 2009 and 2010 convictions for drug
trafficking, drug possession, and other crimes, in the Cuyahoga County (Ohio) Court
of Common Pleas. In his petition, Henderson raises six grounds for relief:
1. The trial court [erred] to the prejudice of Petitioner in violation of
his fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure of a person
and Properties.
2. The trial court [erred] to the prejudice of Petitioner in violation of
his fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.
3. Trial Counsel was not effective, and had Counsel been Counsel as
Guaranteed under the Sixth [Amendment] the outcome would have
been different.
4. Being wrongfully imprisoned for operating a legitimate Business
was Cruel and Unusual Punishment because it violated the Eighth
Amendment.

5. The cumulative effect of Claims I through IV Denied Petitioner Due
Process in violation of his fourteenth Amendment.
6. Insufficient, evidence in violation of the 5th, and 14th Amendments
of the United States Constitution, and NO authority or jurisdiction of
law to do so.
(Doc. 1, § 12.)
The respondent has not yet filed a Return of Writ. (Doc. 6, 9.) Currently
before the court are several motions filed by Henderson.

I. MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Henderson has filed a “Motion to Default Judgment and Issuance of a Return
Writ of Habeas Corpus.” (Doc. 11.) Henderson moves the court to grant his request
for “immediate release and discharge” based on the grounds he has raised in his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and supporting documents. (Doc. 11, at [1].)
The court’s initial order set forth a fairly standard schedule of dates for the
filing of the Return of Writ and his Traverse. (Doc. 6.) The respondent’s Return of
Writ is not yet due, thus the respondent is not in default. (Doc. 9.) As Henderson
has already been informed (doc. 10, at 4-5), because these documents have not yet
been filed, the court is not in the position to rule on the merits, if any, of the
petition. The court notes (again) that habeas relief is not granted simply because a
prisoner files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Rather, the court considers the
petition, and the briefings filed by the parties pro and con, before making a
recommendation on the relief sought. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
2

The Motion for Default Judgment (doc.11) is DENIED.

II. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Henderson has also filed a “Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.” (Doc. 13.)
Henderson again argues that his habeas petition in itself clearly establishes that he
is actually innocent, thus the court should grant him release on bail. (Doc. 13, at
[3], [8].) Henderson is incarcerated because he was found guilty of several criminal
offenses, and his conviction was upheld on direct appeal. Henderson, 2012 WL
892905. At this point in the proceedings, this court must accept that conviction as
valid. As noted above, the parties have yet to brief their arguments on the grounds
of Henderson’s habeas petition.
The release of a state prisoner pending consideration of the merits of his
petition is reserved for extraordinary circumstances. Greenup v. Snyder, No. 016572, 2003 WL 173097 (6th Cir. Jan. 23, 2003) (citing Lee v. Jabe, 989 F.2d 869,
871 (6th Cir. 1993)). Because a habeas petitioner is attacking a presumptively valid
state conviction, “it will indeed be the very unusual case where a habeas petitioner
is admitted to bail prior to a decision on the merits.” Lee, 989 F.2d at 871.
In Dotson v. Clark, the Sixth Circuit stated:
In order to receive bail pending a decision on the merits, prisoners
must be able to show not only a substantial claim of law based on the
facts surrounding the petition but also the existence of “some
circumstance making [the motion for bail] exceptional and deserving of
special treatment in the interests of justice.” There will be few
occasions where a prisoner will meet this standard.
3

Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). Thus,
even if Henderson were able to demonstrate that his habeas claim was substantial,
he would still have to show some exceptional circumstance “deserving of special
treatment.” Henderson’s motion fails to establish any extraordinary circumstance.
The motion for preliminary injunction (doc. 13) is DENIED.

III. SUMMARY
Henderson’s Motion for Default Judgment (doc.11) is DENIED. The motion
for preliminary injunction (doc. 13) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Feb. 18, 2015

/s/ Kenneth S. McHargh
Kenneth S. McHargh
United States Magistrate Judge

4