1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

D’JANGO HENDRIX, 

Petitioner, : Case No. 1:17-cv-623 

- vs - District Judge Douglas R. Cole 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

WARDEN, Lebanon Correctional 

 Institution, 

 

 : 

 Respondent. 

 DECISION AND ORDER 

 

 This habeas corpus action is before the Court on Petitioner’s filings of April 5, 2023, 

comprising 816 pages, but not including Petitioner’s Traverse, which remains due April 7, 2023. 

These new filings are dealt with seriatim below. 

Amended Petition 

 Because Petitioner had neither permission from the Court nor consent of the Respondent, 

his Amended Petition (ECF No. 77) was improperly filed and it is STRICKEN. 

Case: 1:17-cv-00623-DRC-MRM Doc #: 78 Filed: 04/06/23 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 2264
2 

Motion for Leave to Amend 

 Petitioner has moved for leave to file an Amended Petition (ECF No. 74). Respondent’s 

time to oppose the Motion is set at April 26, 2023, by S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2. Consideration of the 

merits of the Motion to Amend is postponed pending response by the Respondent. 

Objections 

 Petitioner has filed Objections (ECF No. 73) under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) to the Magistrate 

Judge’s Decision and Order of March 31, 2023 (ECF No. 72). Objections under that Rule are 

reserved for the assigned District Judge. 

Reconsideration and Stay 

 In addition to objecting to the March 31, 2023, Decision and Order, Petitioner has moved 

for its reconsideration or stay (ECF No. 76). The Magistrate Judge has read this Motion and finds 

that it discloses facts not previously revealed, particularly the involvement of Drs. Brent Turvey 

and Frank Miller in this case. Why their involvement and the time necessary to facilitate that 

involvement were not revealed in previous motions for extension of time is unexplained. Taken 

together, the information in the Motion does not persuade the Magistrate Judge to reconsider the 

March 31, 2023, Order or to stay its effectiveness. Petitioner has already objected to Judge Cole 

on the content of the Order and can approach him as well to stay its effectiveness. 

Case: 1:17-cv-00623-DRC-MRM Doc #: 78 Filed: 04/06/23 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 2265
3 

Motion to Expand the Record 

 Finally, Petitioner has moved to expand the record under Rule 7 of the Rules Governing § 

2254 Cases by adding those documents attached as exhibits to his Motion for Leave to Amend 

(ECF No. 75, PageID 2138). Here again, as with the Motion to Amend, S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2 

allows Respondent until April 26, 2023. Consideration of the merits of this Motion will be 

postponed pending Respondent’s opportunity to reply. 

 Petitioner labels the instant motion as his First Motion to Expand the Record. Id. at PageID 

2139. It is not his first. Rather, on October 27, 2020, he filed his first motion to expand the record 

(ECF No. 27). On August 10, 2021, Magistrate Judge Stephanie Bowman, to whom this case was 

then referred, recommended that the stay of proceedings pending the outcome of state court postconviction process (sought by Hendrix) be granted and the motion to expand be denied without 

prejudice to re-filing after the case was reopened (ECF No. 36). No objections were filed and 

Judge Black adopted the recommendations on August 31, 2021 (ECF No. 37). Hendrix notified 

this Court on April 12, 2022, that the Ohio Supreme Court had rejected his appeal on February 14, 

2022 (ECF No. 38). Hendrix waited from then until April 5, 2023, to file his instant Motion to 

Expand the Record. That delay and the several years delay in filing a traverse is relevant to the 

Motion to Expand. 

April 6, 2023. 

 s/ Michael R. Merz

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 1:17-cv-00623-DRC-MRM Doc #: 78 Filed: 04/06/23 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 2266