Justice v. State of Ohio et al, No. 2:2021cv03584 - Document 30 (S.D. Ohio 2021)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UPON RECONSIDERSATION 29 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 9/24/2021. (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
Justice v. State of Ohio et al Doc. 30 Case: 2:21-cv-03584-SDM-MRM Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/27/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 589 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS LOTUS JUSTICE, Petitioner, : - vs - Case No. 2:21-cv-3584 District Judge Sarah D. Morrison Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz STATE OF OHIO, et al., : Respondents. DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS UPON RECONSIDERSATION This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by Petitioner Lotus Justice, is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying her request for a writ of mandamus ordering the State of Ohio to produce “the bill of particulars” in the underlying felony case (ECF No. 29). Because the order denying the writ is interlocutory, the Court has authority to reconsider it. The Court denied the writ in the following language: The Motion can be read in one of two ways. If a bill of particulars has already been created in the case and Petitioner is merely seeking a copy, mandamus is not the proper remedy. Instead, Petitioner could file in this habeas case a request for discovery seeking a copy of that document. On the other hand, if no bill of particulars yet exists in that case, Petitioner may move the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas to require the State to create a bill of particulars. In either case mandamus is not the proper remedy and the Motion is DENIED. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case: 2:21-cv-03584-SDM-MRM Doc #: 30 Filed: 09/27/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 590 (ECF No. 25, PageID 567). Petitioner does not clarify in her Motion for Reconsideration the principal question posed by the Magistrate Judge’s Order: is she seeking a copy of a bill of particulars which already exists in the Common Pleas Court case or seeking an order from this Court that the State create a bill of particulars? Petitioner has still not said which it is. Nor has she shown that mandamus is the proper remedy, regardless of which it is. Petitioner’s principal complaint is that the Order did not address her request for a writ of mandamus to produce the warrant for her arrest which resulted in her being arrested on July 21, 2020 (ECF No. 29). But Petitioner made no such request; the referenced arrest warrant is not mentioned in the request for mandamus. Had it been, the Magistrate Judge’s response would have been the same: mandamus is not the proper remedy to obtain the arrest warrant. Having reconsidered as requested Petitioner’s Motion for a writ of mandamus, the Magistrate Judge adheres to his prior decision. September 24, 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.