Gideon v. Treglia

• Decision Date: 21 December 2021
• Docket Number: 3:21 CV 2087
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
• Parties: JAMES A. GIDEON, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF MATTHEW B. TREGLIA, Respondent.

JAMES A. GIDEON, Petitioner,
v.
SHERIFF MATTHEW B. TREGLIA, Respondent.

No. 3:21 CV 2087

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division

December 21, 2021

ORDER

JAMES R. KNEPP II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Introduction

Currently pending before the Court in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas case is Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr.'s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) that Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Bond (Doc. 4) be denied. Petitioner has filed Objections (Doc. 10), Respondent has filed a Response (Doc. 13), and Petitioner replied (Doc. 14). Petitioner has also filed a Motion for a Conference or Hearing (Doc. 11). For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Petitioner's Motion for a Conference, overrules Petitioner's Objections, and adopts the R&R's recommendation that Petitioner's Motion for Bond be denied.

Background

The R&R sets forth the factual and procedural history of this case. See Doc. 4, at 1-2. Namely, Petitioner (a retired rheumatologist) was convicted in 2018 of three misdemeanor crimes for sexual imposition involving inappropriately touching patients during office visits. See Id. at 1. Following the expiration of his appeals, Petitioner filed a habeas petition with this Court in November 2021. (Doc. 1).

1

Shortly thereafter, Petitioner filed an Emergency Motion seeking release on bond until the pending petition is adjudicated. He asserts his Petition shows a substantial claim of law and exceptional circumstances warrant his release. Specifically, Petitioner cites his advanced age and deteriorating physical health, combined with his relatively brief (180-day) sentence as exceptional circumstances. See generally Doc. 4, at 4.

Judge Baughman issued an R&R recommending denial of Petitioner's motion for release. He found Petitioner failed to exhaust all post-conviction remedies at the state court level, and failed to show the necessary substantial claim of law or exceptional circumstances necessary to justify release in a habeas case. See Doc. 7.

Petitioner has since filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10), to which Respondent has responded (Doc. 13) and Petitioner has replied (Doc. 14).

Standard of Review

Under the relevant statute:

Within fourteen days of being served with a copy [of a Magistrate Judge's R&R], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

Discussion

Petitioner makes several objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 10). He contends the R&R applies the wrong standard of review and incorrectly assumes Petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies. Id. He further contends the R&R's rejection of Petitioner's cited

2

exceptional circumstances for release is unreasonable. See Id. In response, Respondent contends the correct legal standard was applied and the “magistrate judge reviewed the very factors cited by [Petitioner], and recommended denying his motion.” (Doc. 13, at 2) (citing Doc. 7, at 7-8).

“Release of a state prisoner pending consideration of the habeas corpus petition is reserved for the extraordinary case.” Greenup v. Snyder, 57 Fed.Appx. 620, 621 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Lee v. Jabe, 989 F.2d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 1993)). “Since a habeas petitioner is appealing a presumptively valid state conviction, both principles of comity and common sense dictate that it will indeed be the very unusual case where a habeas petitioner is admitted to bail prior to a decision on the merits in the habeas case.” Lee, 989 F.2d at 871. A habeas petitioner must show “not only a substantial claim of law based on the facts surrounding the petition but also the existence of ‘some circumstance making [the motion for bail] exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the in the interest of justice.'” Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964) (Douglas, J., in Chambers)). The Sixth Circuit recognized in Dotson that there would “be few occasions where a prisoner will meet this standard” and that “as a practical matter, the motions for bail will be denied in most of the habeas proceedings.” Id.

For the reasons stated below, the Court overrules Petitioner's objections and adopts the R&R's recommendation that Petitioner's motion be denied.

Substantial Claim

Petitioner asserts his Petition raises four substantial claims of law that support his motion for bond: (1) improper admission of inculpatory statements made to state medical board investigator; (2) improper joinder of separately-filed criminal complaints; (3) improper jury instruction and prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) insufficient evidence. (Doc. 1, at 2). For his

3

“substantial claim” argument, Petitioner relies primarily on his first claim - the admission of his inculpatory statements. See Doc. 14, at 4.

By way of background, the Third District Court of Appeals originally overturned Petitioner's convictions on appeal, finding Petitioner's statements were not voluntary and should have been suppressed by the trial court. See State v. Gideon, 130 N.E.3d 357, 370-80 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). But the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and remanded on this issue, finding the statements voluntary and not the product of coercion. State v. Gideon, 165 Ohio St.3d 142, 144-49 (Ohio 2020); State v. Gideon, 165 Ohio St.3d 156 (Ohio 2020)...