Priest v. Hudson, No. 1:2008cv02028 - Document 19 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order re-adopting the 12 Report and Recommendation. Petitioner's 18 Motion for Relief from Judgement is Granted; Petitioner's 17 Objections to the R&R are Overruled; and Ground Two of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is Dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, the Court orders that Doc. #11 be sealed due to the sensitive information contained within. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 12/9/09. (K,K) Modified docket text on 12/10/2009 (B,IE).

Download PDF

Priest v. Hudson Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION MYRON PRIEST, Petitioner, vs. STUART HUDSON, WARDEN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:08 CV 2028 Judge Dan Aaron Polster MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are Petitioner Myron Priest’s Motion For Relief From Judgement (Doc. #18) and Objections to the October 7, 2009 Report and Recommended Decision (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge George Limbert (Doc. #17). For the following reasons, Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgement is GRANTED, Petitioner’s Objections to the R&R are OVERRULED and Ground Two of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Habeas Petition”) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. I. On October 7, 2009, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Ground Two of the Habeas Petition, which argued that the trial court violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution, by not permitting an in camera inspection of a police report drafted by Officer Dockets.Justia.com Bechtel.1 The Magistrate Judge concluded that the lack of an in camera inspection of the police report did not prejudice Petitioner because the report contained very little that was discoverable, that which was discoverable was not exculpatory and because the weight of all other evidence easily convicted Petitioner. Doc. #12 at 4-5. On October 19, 2009, Petitioner moved for an extension to file objections to the R&R. Doc. #13. On October 20, 2009 the Court, at its discretion, granted Petitioner until November 23, 2009, to file objections. Doc. #14. As Petitioner had not filed an objection to the R & R and had not requested another extension to file an objection, the Court adopted the R & R and dismissed the Habeas Petition with prejudice on November 25, 2009. Doc. #15. On December 7, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant Motion for Relief from Judgment along with his Objections to the R&R. Docs. #17, 18. So that Petitioner’s objections may be considered by the Court, Petitioner’s Motion for Relief is GRANTED and the Court hereby withdraws its November 25, 2009 adoption of the R&R and consequent dismissal with prejudice. II. The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s Objections to the R &R and hereby OVERRULES the Objections. As discussed in the R&R, in order to merit habeas relief a trial court’s procedural or evidentiary error must “render[ ] the proceeding so fundamentally unfair as to deprive the petitioner of due process under the Fourth Amendment.” McAdoo v. Elo, 365 F.3d 487, 494 (6th Cir. 2004); Doc. #12 at 2. Petitioner’s objections do not sufficiently address how 1 The Court previously adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Interim Report and Recommended Decision that Grounds One, Three and Four of the habeas petition be denied. Doc# 10. -2- the failure to conduct an in camera inspection of a police report, most of which was not discoverable and none of which was exculpatory, caused prejudice such that the proceeding was fundamentally unfair. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that the evidence against Petitioner was so “overwhelming” that the outcome of the trial definitely would not have been altered by an in camera inspection of Officer Bechtel’s police report.2 See Doc. # 12 at 4-5. Accordingly, the Court hereby RE-ADOPTS the Report and Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #12). Ground Two of the Petition is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Additionally, the Court ORDERS that Officer Bechtel’s police report, Doc. #11, be sealed due to the sensitive information contained within. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Dan Aaron Polster December 9, 2009 Dan Aaron Polster United States District Judge 2 Among the evidence weighing against Petitioner was the testimony of the three victims who all identified Petitioner as the perpetrator, DNA evidence, and the identification of a handgun owned by Petitioner and used in the crime.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.