Ogle v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Filing 27

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION FOR STAY OF SENTENCE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 8/1/2015. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
MELANIE A. OGLE,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 2:15-cv-776
Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

GARY C. MOHR, DIRECTOR,
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
And Correction,
:
Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION FOR
STAY OF SENTENCE

This habeas corpus action is before the Court on Petitioner’s Renewed Motion to Stay
Remainder of Unlawful Sentencing Pending Resolution of Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (ECF No. 25).
Petitioner previously moved to stay the remainder of her sentence (ECF No. 8). The
Magistrate Judge denied that Motion (ECF No. 9) and Ms. Ogle’s objections (ECF No. 11) are
presently pending before Chief Judge Sargus.
Petitioner’s Renewed Motion essentially restates her position that the order extending her
community control sentence is plainly unlawful and she should therefore be released from its
conditions pending a decision on the merits. As the law cited in the Magistrate Judge’s Decision
and Order of May 4, 2015, holds, granting release pending a merits decision on a habeas petition
is rare and requires both a substantial claim of law and the existence of exceptional
circumstances deserving special treatment in the interests of justice. Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3,
1

5, 13 L.Ed.2d 6, 9 (1964) (Douglas, J., in chambers). Despite Petitioner’s belief that her claim is
clear on the merits, the record she herself filed with her first amended petition is more than
sixteen hundred pages long. Petitioner’s own Motion to Expand the Record (ECF No. 20) was
only filed a week ago and has not yet been responded to by the Warden, much less decided.
Thus there is a complex record and a long history to understand in this case before the Court
reaches the merits. The merits may be “clear” when the Court has finished, but they are not clear
to the Court as yet.
On the other side of the scale is Petitioner’s own interest in liberty. Even when a habeas
petitioner is suffering from an extreme deprivation of liberty as in being confined in a state or
federal penitentiary, release pending a decision on the merits is rare and unlikely to be without
conditions. Ms. Ogle is not imprisoned. What she seeks in her Renewed Motion is release
without conditions, the essential equivalent of an unconditional writ of habeas corpus before the
Court has considered the merits. That relief is not merited on the showing made to date.
The Renewed Motion for Stay is DENIED.
August 1, 2015.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2