Jackson v. Houk

Filing 87

Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/25/2021 denying Motion to stay (Related Doc # 83 )(S,KM)

Case: 4:07-cv-00880-JG Doc #: 87 Filed: 03/25/21 1 of 3. PageID #: 23895

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
NATHANIEL JACKSON,
Petitioner,
vs.
MARC C. HOUK,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO.
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 83]

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
On February 23, 2021, the Court granted Nathanial Jackson’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. 1 Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the state trial court for
resentencing.
Now, Respondent Marc. C. Houk requests the Court stay its remand order. 2 Petitioner
Jackson opposes. 3
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Respondent’s motion to stay the remand
order.
I.

Discussion
When deciding whether to issue a stay of on order pending appeal, courts consider

four factors:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to
succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparable injured
absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other
parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” 4
1

Doc. 80.
Doc. 83.
3
Doc. 85.
2

4

Ohio State Conference of N.A.A.C.P. v. Husted, 769 F.3d 385, 387 (6th Cir. 2014) (internal

citations and quotations omitted).

Case: 4:07-cv-00880-JG Doc #: 87 Filed: 03/25/21 2 of 3. PageID #: 23896
Case No.
GWIN, J.
“[T]he first two factors … are the most critical.” 5 The party requesting the stay bears the
burden of establishing that the stay is warranted. 6
The Court is not persuaded that the relevant factors weigh in favor of issuing a stay.
First, Respondent Houk has not established that he has a strong likelihood of success
on appeal. In support of his motion, Respondent argues the Court granted Jackson’s habeas
petitioner because the Court “concluded the Ohio courts erred in failing to apply the rule in

Davis v. Coyle[.]” 7
Respondent is mistaken. The Court granted Jackson’s petition because the Court, like
the Sixth Circuit in Davis, found that “the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision to prevent Jackson
from presenting mitigating evidence at his resenting hearing ‘was both an unreasonable
application of the Skipper decision and contrary to the holding in that opinion and its
antecedent cases.’” 8 More simply, the Court granted Jackson’s petition because the Ohio
Supreme Court’s decision was an unreasonable application of and contrary to clearly
established federal law as set out in binding Supreme Court precedent. This factor weighs
against a stay.
Second, Respondent Houk has not established that he will be irreparably harmed
without the stay. The Court believes it will be some time before Petitioner received a new
mitigation hearing. If it appears the mitigation hearing will occur before the Sixth Circuit can
issue a ruling on the appeal, Respondent can seek a state court continuance. This factor
weighs against a stay.

5
6
7
8

Ohio State Conference of N.A.A.C.P., 769 F.3d at 387.
Id.
Doc. 83 at 2.
Doc. 80 at 18–19.

-2-

Case: 4:07-cv-00880-JG Doc #: 87 Filed: 03/25/21 3 of 3. PageID #: 23897
Case No.
GWIN, J.
Third, Respondent Houk has not established that a stay will not substantially injure
Petitioner Jackson. As Petitioner points out, a stay will deprive Jackson the opportunity to
develop new mitigation evidence by allowing him to reenter the prison’s general
population. 9 This factor weighs against a stay.
Finally, Respondent Houk has not established that the public interests supports a stay.
This factor is neutral.
II.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Respondent’s motion to stay the Court’s

remand order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2021

9

s/

James S. Gwin

JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Doc. 85 at 4–5.

-3-