Shine-Johnson v. Warden, Belmont Correctional Institution, No. 2:2020cv01873 - Document 44 (S.D. Ohio 2021)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 36 AND GRANTING MOTIONFOR LEAVE TO FILE AFFIDAVITS 43 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 1/16/2021. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Shine-Johnson v. Warden, Belmont Correctional Institution Doc. 44 Case: 2:20-cv-01873-ALM-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 01/19/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 3050 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS JOSEPH SHINE-JOHNSON, Petitioner, : - vs - Case No. 2:20-cv-1873 Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz WARDEN, Belmont Correctional Institution, : Respondent. DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AFFIDAVITS This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 36) and Motion for Leave to File Affidavit (ECF No. 43). As the Magistrate Judge understands the Motion to Compel, Shine-Johnson wants the Court to compel Belmont Correctional to print out email messages he has received from Alexis Quinn through the JPay service. The Court simply does not understand why a court order is needed. If the print outs would be available to a prisoner on payment of a fee and Shine-Johnson wants a court order to avoid payment of the fee, the Magistrate Judge is reluctant to enter such an order because Shine-Johnson has provided no proof that he cannot pay. More fundamentally, Petitioner is asking the Court to compel discovery of information in the control of the Respondent without having shown the discovery is warranted under the habeas corpus standards for discovery. Shine-Johnson apparently knows what is in the emails because he represents the content is relevant to his case. There is nothing preventing him from preparing his own affidavit about that 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case: 2:20-cv-01873-ALM-MRM Doc #: 44 Filed: 01/19/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 3051 content and submitting it to the Court in support of a motion for discovery. If the Court requires corroboration of the content by examining the originals, an order compelling production can be entered at that time. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Compel is DENIED without prejudice to its renewal if the original content of the emails needs to be proven later. Petitioner should prepare his motion for discovery, supported by his own affidavit, and file it as promptly as possible. To that extent his Motion for Leave to File Affidavit is GRANTED. January 16, 2021. s/ Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge 2

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.