Smith v. Warden of Toledo Correctional Institution

Filing 158

ORDER denying 156 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 5/5/2020. (rrs)

Case: 1:12-cv-00425-TSB-MRM Doc #: 158 Filed: 05/05/20 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 3584

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER SMITH,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, Toledo Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:12-cv-425
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 156)
This civil action is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
(the “Motion for Reconsideration”). (Doc. 156).
I. BACKGROUND
In brief, the background facts relevant to the Motion for Reconsideration are as
follows.1 (Id.) On May 25, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
(Doc. 1). Then, on November 7, 2019, after the lengthy proceedings detailed in the
Court’s prior Orders, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that the Court issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 115).
On April 4, 2020, Petitioner filed a Notice informing this Court that a staff
member at the Toledo Correctional Institution (“TCI”)—the correctional facility in which
Petitioner was housed—had tested positive for COVID-19. (Doc. 122 at 1–2).

1

This case has an extensive history, which the Court will not attempt to fully set forth here. The
Court incorporates the background facts set forth in its previous Orders. (See Docs. 125, 155).

Case: 1:12-cv-00425-TSB-MRM Doc #: 158 Filed: 05/05/20 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: 3585

Additionally, Petitioner informed the Court that he had a preexisting condition which
rendered him particularly susceptible to becoming critically ill from COVID-19. (Id.)
In response, the Court issued a Notation Order, ordering the parties to:
[C]onfer by telephone on the following issue: whether, if this
Court were to issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus as to
Petitioner, the parties could agree that, during the conditional
period, Petitioner would be released on the condition that he
remain on home incarceration (with any other appropriate
conditions or monitoring requirements), instead of remaining
detained at TCI.
(Not. Order, Apr. 6, 2020 (emphasis added)). The Court gave the parties an April 8, 2020
deadline to both confer by telephone as required by the Notation Order and advise the
Court whether they had been able to reach an agreement. (Id.)
On April 8, 2020, the Court received an email from Petitioner’s counsel, stating
that despite her many attempted calls and emails, Respondent’s counsel had been
unresponsive. (Doc. 125 at 27). In other words, the Court learned that, notwithstanding
its clear Notation Order, Respondent’s counsel had wholly failed to participate in the
required telephone conference. (Id.)
On April 9, 2020, the Court issued an unconditional writ of habeas corpus,
requiring Petitioner’s immediate release from custody (the “Unconditional Writ”). (Id. at
31). Thereafter, the Court learned that, notwithstanding the Unconditional Writ,
Petitioner remained in detention. (Doc. 155 at 1–2). Accordingly, the Court was forced
to issue two additional Orders, to secure Petitioner’s release (collectively with the
Unconditional Writ, the “Release Orders”). (Id.) Petitioner was ultimately released on
April 14, 2020. (Id. at 2).
2

Case: 1:12-cv-00425-TSB-MRM Doc #: 158 Filed: 05/05/20 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: 3586

Following the issuance of the Unconditional Writ, but prior to his release,
Petitioner filed a Rule 60(b) motion, asking the Court to amend the Unconditional Writ,
in order to bar the State from retrying him (the “Emergency Motion”). (Doc. 134).
Petitioner argued that it was proper for the Court to amend the Unconditional Writ, based
on Respondent’s and the State’s (collectively, the “State Actors”) noncompliance with
this Court’s Orders.2 (Doc. 152 at 2–3).
On April 24, 2020, after extensive briefing, the Court issued an Order denying
Petitioner’s Emergency Motion. (Doc. 155). Critical to the Court’s decision was the fact
that the Emergency Motion requested relief unavailable under the Rules—that is,
Petitioner asked the Court to amend the Unconditional Writ, based on events occurring
after the Writ’s issuance. (Id. at 7–8 (citing D’Ambrosio v. Bagley, 656 F.3d 379, 388
(6th Cir. 2011)).
On April 28, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant motion, asking the Court to
reconsider its Rule 60(b) Order. (Doc. 156). Upon review, the Court finds that no further
briefing is required and, accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is deemed ripe for
decision.
II. ANALYSIS
In the Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner moves the Court to reconsider its
April 24, 2020 Order. (Id.) Petitioner argues that the Court overlooked a material fact
that was in existence prior to the issuance of the Unconditional Writ—that is, the State

2

Petitioner also argued that it was proper to bar retrial to enforce the Unconditional Writ. (Doc.
155 at 4–5). However, Petitioner’s April 14, 2020 release mooted this argument. (Id.)

3

Case: 1:12-cv-00425-TSB-MRM Doc #: 158 Filed: 05/05/20 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: 3587

Actors’ intent to keep Petitioner in custody unlawfully, i.e., regardless of whether the
Court ordered his release. (Id. at 3).
As a threshold matter, it is important to note that, in the context of a habeas
proceeding, there is nothing inherently suspect about a state’s desire to keep a habeas
petitioner in custody. Indeed, in opposing habeas relief, the state respondent will
naturally hold the position that the habeas petitioner’s conviction was constitutional, and
that release is unwarranted. Moreover, even when habeas relief is granted, the customary
practice is for a habeas court to issue of a conditional writ, which allows the state to keep
the petitioner in custody pending a decision on retrial.
Thus, the essential inquiry in the instant case is not whether the State Actors
harbored a pre-Writ intent to keep Petitioner in custody—but rather, whether the State
Actors harbored a pre-Writ intent to do so unlawfully—e.g., by violating this Court’s
Orders and misleading other judges. With this distinction in mind, the Court turns to
Petitioner’s specific arguments.
According to Petitioner, the State Actors’ intent to keep him detained unlawfully
is evidenced by: (1) their refusal to confer by telephone, as required by the Court’s April
6, 2020 Notation Order; and (2) their pattern of misconduct and noncompliance with the
Court’s Release Orders. (Id. at 3–7; see also Not. Order, Apr. 6, 2020; Docs. 125, 132,
141).
On review, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration must fail.
First, Petitioner argues that the failure to confer by telephone, as required by the
April 6, 2020 Notation Order, evidences a pre-Writ intent to violate any Court Order
4

Case: 1:12-cv-00425-TSB-MRM Doc #: 158 Filed: 05/05/20 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: 3588

requiring release. (Doc. 156 at 3–5). Specifically, Petitioner claims that Respondent
failed to participate in the required conference, because Respondent’s counsel could not
have done so without betraying the State Actors’ intent to keep Petitioner in custody at all
costs (i.e., unlawfully and in violation of any future Court Orders). (Id.)
In order for the Court to adopt Petitioner’s argument, the Court would have to
assume that the only reason Respondent failed to participate in the conference was
because she could not have done so if the State Actors intended to violate the Court’s
future Orders. However, the Court cannot reach these conclusions.
As an initial matter, Respondent could have participated in the conference without
divulging any unlawful intent to violate future Court Orders. Specifically, the April 6,
2020 Notation Order required the parties to hold a teleconference, then advise the Court
if they could agree to any conditions of supervision that would allow Petitioner to be
released pending the State’s consideration of retrial. (Not. Order, Apr. 6, 2020). Because
the April 6, 2020 Notation Order merely required the parties to confer in an attempt to
reach an agreement, Respondent could have participated in the conference and
maintained the position that the State would not agree to any conditions of release.
Moreover, this Court cannot conclude that the only reason Respondent failed to
participate was because the State Actors intended to violate the Court’s future Orders.
Indeed, as the Court noted in the Unconditional Writ, Respondent clearly misunderstood
the Court’s direction in the Notation Order. (Doc. 125 at 28). Thus, Respondent’s failure
to participate may also have resulted from Respondent’s counsel’s failure to read or
understand the Notation Order in the first instance. To be sure, Respondent’s counsel’s
5

Case: 1:12-cv-00425-TSB-MRM Doc #: 158 Filed: 05/05/20 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: 3589

failure to carefully read or comprehend clear and unambiguous directions from the Court
is a poor excuse for failing to abide by the Notation Order. Regardless, it does provide an
alternative explanation for the failure to participate in the conference.
In short, an intent to violate future Court Orders is not the only possible, nor the
most logical, inference to draw from Respondent’s failure to participate in the
conference. Thus, the Court cannot make such an inference.
Second, Petitioner argues that, since the issuance of the Unconditional Writ, the
State Actors have engaged in a “pattern of misconduct,” which evidences that they never
intended to comply with any of the Court’s Orders requiring Petitioner’s release in the
first place. (Doc. 156 at 5–6). Specifically, Petitioner points to Respondent’s refusal to
abide by the Unconditional Writ, as well as the State’s efforts to mislead the state court
and deceptively procure a detention order. (Id.)
This Court previously expressed that the State Actors’ apparent misconduct in this
case has been astounding. (Doc. 155 at 8). The Court’s Unconditional Writ stated, in no
uncertain terms, that Petitioner was to be immediately released from custody, as his
detention was premised upon an unconstitutional conviction. (Doc. 125 at 31). Despite
this fact, the State Actors kept Petitioner in custody for another five days thereafter.
(Doc. 155 at 2). While the violations of this Court’s Release Orders are unacceptable, the
Court cannot assume, based on those post-Writ violations alone, that the State Actors
harbored an intent to commit these violations prior to the issuance of the Unconditional
Writ.

6

Case: 1:12-cv-00425-TSB-MRM Doc #: 158 Filed: 05/05/20 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: 3590

In fact, the record presently before the Court undermines the notion that such
intent existed. As the record reflects, immediately after the issuance of the Unconditional
Writ, the State Actors contacted Judge Ruehlman to request an order to stop Petitioner’s
release. (Doc. 156-1 at 6). Judge Ruehlman required the State prosecutors to provide
him with additional information—specifically, a copy of the Unconditional Writ. (Id. at
7–8). Rather than complying with Judge Ruehlman’s direction, the State prosecutors
allegedly went to another state judge and deceptively procured an order to transport
Petitioner back to Hamilton County. (Id. at 8; see also Doc. 136-2 at 2). Again, this
alleged conduct is astounding.
However, the conduct, as alleged, does not establish that the State Actors
anticipated and fully intended to disregard a future Unconditional Writ or any other
future orders requiring release. Rather, it would appear that, after the issuance of the
Unconditional Writ, the State engaged in a last minute and nefarious scramble in order to
prolong Petitioner’s detention. This scramble implies a level of unpreparedness
inconsistent with a preconceived intent to violate this Court’s Orders. Thus, the Court
cannot conclude that the post-Writ misconduct has any direct correlation to a pre-Writ
intent, as Petitioner argues.
III. CONCLUSION
In sum, while Petitioner has alleged that the State Actors harbored a pre-Writ
intent to violate this Court’s Release Orders, the evidence of record does not lead this
Court to make such an inference. And the Court cannot reconsider its April 24, 2020
Order on the basis of mere speculation. What the Court can do, however, is fully
7

Case: 1:12-cv-00425-TSB-MRM Doc #: 158 Filed: 05/05/20 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: 3591

investigate the State Actors’ noncompliance with the Court’s lawful Orders, in the
context of a contempt proceeding.
Based upon the foregoing, Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 156)
must be DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: May 5, 2020
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

8