Finnell v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution

Filing 50

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order 46 should be denied. Objections to R&R due by 10/27/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 10/13/2020. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that do not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 1:17-cv-00268-MRB-MRM Doc #: 50 Filed: 10/13/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 2049

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
KYLE FINNELL,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 1:17-cv-268
District Judge Michael R. Barrett
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

TIM SCHWEITZER, Warden,
Lebanon Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 46). The Motion seeks to restrain The
Honorable Robert Ruehlman, Judge of the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, from
continuing to interfere with Petitioner’s right to the effective assistance of counsel and in particular
to lift a seal Judge Ruehlman has placed on certain filed documents in the underlying criminal case
in which Petitioner is presently litigating a motion for new trial.
From reading the attachments to Finnell’s Motion the Magistrate Judge has learned that
the seal in question specifically allows the release of juror information to Finnell’s counsel and
that its placement was ordered by the First District Court of Appeals in its remand order. Thus
what Finnell appears to be complaining about is that the juror identification information has not
been made available to the general public. Finnell has not even suggested how that interferes with
his right to effective representation. On that basis alone, the Motion should be denied.

1

Case: 1:17-cv-00268-MRB-MRM Doc #: 50 Filed: 10/13/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 2050

In addition, the Motion seeks injunctive relief against a person who is not a party to this
action, Judge Robert Ruehlman. It would be a gross violation of the Due Process Clause to issue
an injunction against a person who was not a party.
Finally, issuing the injunction would place Judge Ruehlman in the untenable position of
risking being either in contempt of the First District for disobeying its remand order or in contempt
of this Court for not obeying our order. In the interest of comity with our sister court, Finnell
should be required to seek the relief he wants by application to the First District to amend its
remand order.
For all of these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
Restraining Order should be denied.

October 13, 2020.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Because this document is being served by mail, three days are added under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be
accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party may respond to
another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to
make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.

2