Campbell v. Jenkins

Filing 15

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Reassign Case. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer this action to the Western Division of this court for assignment to the dockets of the Honorable Walter H. Rice and Magistrate Judge Michael Merz. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 09/4/2015. (cw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ALVA CAMPBELL,
Petitioner,
v.
CHARLOTTE JENKINS, Warden,

Case No. 2:15-cv-1702
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp

Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner, a prisoner sentenced to death by the State of Ohio, has pending before this
court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) This
matter is before the Court for consideration of the Warden’s Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 6),
Petitioner’s Response (ECF No. 7), and the Warden’s Reply (ECF No. 8).
Petitioner Alva Campbell filed his second-in-time Petition in this Court on May 6, 2015.
(ECF No. 1.)1 Following this Court’s May 8, 2015 order appointing counsel and setting a
deadline for the Warden to respond to the Petition (ECF No. 3), the Warden filed the instant
Motion to Transfer. (ECF No. 6.) Citing S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 3.1(b) and S.D. Ohio Crim. R.
57.2(h), the Warden asks this Court to transfer Petitioner’s habeas corpus action to the docket of
Walter H. Rice, as Judge Rice adjudicated Petitioner’s prior habeas corpus action attacking the
same judgment of conviction and sentence that Petitioner attacks in the second-in-time Petition

1

Petitioner’s original habeas corpus action was disposed of by the Honorable
Walter H. Rice. 2008 WL 657536 and 2009 WL 773866. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Judge
Rice’s decision denying relief. Campbell v. Bradshaw, 674 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2012). The
Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 29, 2012 and the Sixth Circuit issued the mandate
on December 19, 2012. (ECF No. 1, at Page ID # 7-8.)
1

filed in this Court. (ECF No. 6, at Page ID # 180.) “By virtue of this relationship,” the Warden
asserts, “the instant action is sufficiently related to Campbell’s prior habeas action that a transfer
of this case to the docket of Judge Rice would be warranted.” (Id. at Page ID # 181 (citing S.D.
Civ. R. 3.1(b)).) The Warden also argues that S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 57.2(h), which governs
procedures in death penalty cases, requires any subsequent habeas corpus petitions filed by the
same applicant to be assigned to the judge who considered the prior habeas corpus petition. (Id.
at Page ID # 181.)
In response, Petitioner first notes that despite the fact that he indicated on the caption of
his filing that his Petition was related to his initial habeas corpus case, the clerk’s office
nonetheless assigned the above case number and randomly assigned the case to District Judge
Marbley and Magistrate Judge Kemp. (ECF No. 7, at Page ID # 185.) Beyond the foregoing,
Petitioner also asserts that although “the conviction and sentence that [are] the subject of the
current Petition are the same as the previous petition, the claims are different.” (Id. at Page ID #
186.) Petitioner explains that his current Petition raises method-of-execution claims, while his
prior Petition attacked the constitutional validity of the underlying conviction and sentence of
death. “Because the two Petitions are premised on distinctly different legal theories and do not
overlap,” Petitioner reasons, “they are not necessarily related cases pursuant to Local Rule 3.1”
(Id.) Although conceding that S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 57.2(h) governing death penalty cases is
mandatory and requires that the instant case be assigned to Judge Rice, Petitioner appears to
suggest that the “significantly different legal theory” at the heart of the instant case “may”
override the mandatory language of S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 57.2(h). (Id.) In conclusion, Petitioner

2

states that the assignment or re-assignment of this case should be decided based on the Court’s
Local Rules and a consultation between the judges involved. (Id. at Page ID # 187.)
The Court’s local rule governing procedures in death penalty cases, S.D. Ohio Crim. R.
57.2(h), provides in relevant part: “If the same petitioner has previously filed in this Court an
application … for habeas corpus relief, the case shall be assigned to the judge who considered
the prior matter.” S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 57.2(h). The Court finds unpersuasive Campbell’s
suggestion that the legally distinct nature of the claims he raises in the instant Petition overrides
the mandatory language of S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 57.2(h). As the Warden correctly suggests in her
Reply, Petitioner styled the instant action as a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. Under the language of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), Petitioner is attacking in the instant Petition
the same judgment of conviction and sentence that he attacked in his prior Petition. (ECF No. 8,
at Page ID # 188-189.) Nothing about the legally distinct nature of the claims he has raised in
the instant Petition alters that fact. And that fact qualifies the instant case as related to
Petitioner’s prior case pursuant to S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 3.1(b)(1), as Petitioner appropriately
acknowledged by indicating as much in the caption of the instant Petition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Warden’s Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer this action to the Western Division of this court for
assignment to the dockets of the Honorable Walter H. Rice and Magistrate Judge Michael Merz.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Algenon L. Marbley
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
United States District Judge
3