Champion v. Warden, London Correctional Institution

Filing 18

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING CHAMPION'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (Doc. 14 ). Champion has not shown good cause to reopen the judgment in this case. His Motion for Relief from Judgment (doc. 14 ) is, therefore, DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 2/27/14. (ep)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
BRUCE R. CHAMPION
Case No. C-3:13-cv-315
Petitioner,
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vDEB TIMMERMAN-COOPER
Warden, London Correctional
Institution

Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING CHAMPION’S MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (Doc. #14)
______________________________________________________________________________
This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner Bruce R. Champion’s
(“Champion’s”) Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). (Doc. #14.)
Champion seeks relief from this Court’s Entry and Order dismissing his Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus. (Doc. #12.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Champion filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on September 20, 2013. (Doc.
#1.) The Magistrate Judge filed an initial Report and Recommendations recommending that
Champion’s Petition be dismissed because it was untimely by more than eleven (11) years. (Doc.
#2.) Champion sought to overcome the limitations bar with a claim of actual innocence. In a
Supplemental Report and Recommendations, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Champion had
not satisfied the actual innocence gateway standard of Schulp v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
(Doc. #7.) Champion then requested an extension of time to file objections of “at least sixty (60)
to ninety (90) days.” (Doc. #8.) By notation order, the Magistrate Judge granted an extension to

January 15, 2014, which was an extension of ninety-two (92) days.
Next, on January 9, 2014, Champion filed a Motion to Supplement and/or Amend the
Petition to Expand the Record and Request for Extension of Time. (Doc. #9.) Therein, Champion
stated that he needed this Court to order the State of Ohio “to produce documentation such as the
trial transcripts, evidence used at trial, and the co-defendants case file to refute the Second
Appellate District Court of Appeals of Ohio record for the direct appeal, and post-conviction.”
(Id.) Also therein, Champion recognized that he could have obtained these records by public
records request, but that he would have had to pay for them. On that same day, the Magistrate
Judge denied this Motion. (Doc. #10.)
Although he had a total of one hundred (100) days in which to prepare and file objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s Supplemental Report and Recommendations, he did not do so by the
January 15, 2014 deadline. On February 12, 2014, this Court adopted both the Report and
Recommendations and Supplemental Report and Recommendations and dismissed Champion’s
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. #12.) The Court noted that Champion had never
filed objections to the Supplemental Report and Recommendations but considered Champion’s
objections to the original Report and Recommendations de novo.
Champion now seeks to reopen the Entry and Order which adopts the Report and
Recommendations and Supplemental Report and Recommendations and dismisses his Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. #14.) Champion has also filed a Notice of Appeal of this
Entry and Order. (Doc. #15.)
ANALYSIS
Champion claims that he had every intention of filing objections to the Supplemental

-2-

Report and Recommendations but just did not have enough time. (Id.) He claims that he is
entitled to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) because he was surprised by this Court’s ruling
on his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Id.) He says that he “not unreasonably expected
that his timely Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections would be addressed and granted
prior to the issuance of a decision by this Court and he was surprised when ot [sic] was not.”
(Id.)
To the contrary, Champion’s first motion for an extension of time (doc. #8) was granted
and he was given more additional time than he requested. Champion’s second request for an
extension of time was also addressed and decided by being denied on January 9, 2014, more than
one (1) month before the Court dismissed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Litigants do not have a right to repeated extensions of time just because they ask for them
before the time expires. It is now more than one hundred and forty (140) days since the
Supplemental Report and Recommendations was filed which is more than ten times the period
set for objections in Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. And, Champion still has not submitted objections to the
Supplemental Report and Recommendations. This is in the context of a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus that was filed more than eleven (11) years after the conviction in question
became final.
Champion has not shown good cause to reopen the judgment in this case. His Motion for
Relief from Judgment (doc. #14) is, therefore, DENIED.

-3-

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Twenty-Seventh Day of February, 2014.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Bruce R. Champion at his last address of record

-4-