Bedell v. Menard et al

Filing 45

ORDER Adopting 42 Report and Recommendation. The dispositive motions 10 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 26 , and 30 are DENIED. The Order denying the non dispositive motions 15 , 16 , 22 , 25 and 39 remains in effect and is not modified or set aside. As the magistrate judge's report recognizes, the merits of the 5 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus remain pending. Signed by Chief Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford on 8/15/2018. (esb)

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT Of VERHONT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT

CLINTON BEDELL,
Petitioner,
V.

LISA MENARD,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED

2018 AUG 15 PH ~: 46

Case No. 5:18-cv-46

DECISION ON APPEAL FROM REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
(Doc. 42)
In March 2018, petitioner Clinton Bedell filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 2254. The case was automatically referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge John Conroy
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and Local Rule 73(f). Petitioner is prose.
Petitioner has filed nine dispositive motions (Docs. 10, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 30)
and five non-dispositive motions (Docs. 15, 16, 22, 25, and 39). The magistrate judge issued his
Report and Recommendation concerning the dispositive motions and an accompanying Order
concerning the non-dispositive motions. The magistrate judge recommended denial of all
dispositive motions and denied the non-dispositive motions. (Doc. 42.)
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, petitioner filed a timely objection to the Report and
Recommendation and Order. (Doc. 44.) In effect, he has appealed the decision of the magistrate
judge to the district court.
This court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and Order issued on July 31,
2018. The court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation as it relates to the
dispositive motions. The magistrate judge carefully considered each motion. The
recommendation that these motions be denied is supported by case law and consistent with the
limited procedures which apply to habeas petitions. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
This court agrees with the Report and Recommendation that the petitioner's request for remedies

such as a preliminary and permanent injunction, judgment on the pleadings, default, directed
verdict, and nominal damages have no application in the context of a Section 2254 proceeding.
The court also agrees that the proposed amendments related to claims of "sexual privacy," "due
process liberty," and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§
2000cc-2000cc-5, in the context of familial incest lack any merit and should be denied.
The court declines to modify or set aside the Order denying the non-dispositive motions
(Doc. 42). The court agrees that the motions seeking an order requiring consideration of case
law, a hearing before a three-judge panel, and for the appointment of counsel.

CONCLUSION
The court adopts the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42). The dispositive motions
(Docs. 10, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 30) are DENIED. The Order denying the nondispositive motions (Docs. 15, 16, 22, 25 and 39) remains in effect and is not modified or set
aside.
As the magistrate judge's report recognizes, the merits of the habeas petition (Doc. 5)
remain pending.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Rutland, in the District of Vermont, this

/

lz_ day of August, 2018.

~

Geoffrey W. Crawford, Chief Judge
United States District Court