1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

CRAIG A. THOMPSON,

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:18-cv-117

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

CHAE HARRIS, Warden,

 Warren Correctional Institution

:

Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL 

DISCOVERY

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Request for Additional 

Discovery (ECF No. 76) which Respondent opposes (ECF No. 78). 

Trial Court Docket Sheets

Frist Thompson avers that the supplemental record most recently filed by Respondent is 

incomplete. He asserts he requested the Second District Court of Appeals to take judicial notice 

of various trial court dockets, that the motion was granted, and that “the exhibits were considered 

for purposes of the appeal (ECF No. 76, PageID 3012). He continues that the “motion for judicial 

notice, along with the exhibits attached, are requested for use in this habeas petition.” Id.

This is not really a request for additional discovery: Thompson knows what is in his motion 

for judicial notice and the attachments. Rather, it is properly considered as a motion to expand the

Case: 3:18-cv-00117-TMR-MRM Doc #: 80 Filed: 06/12/20 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 3043
2

record. Thompson has not attempted to show how these documents are relevant to his pending 

claims. Presuming their relevance, however, they were before the Second District and considered 

by that court. There is no prejudice to Respondent from expanding the record to include these 

docket sheets. The Motion is granted to the extent of allowing these docket sheets to be considered 

by this Court in adjudicating this case; their consideration is not precluded by Cullen v. Pinholster, 

563 U.S. 170 (2011). There is no need to furnish this Court with copies of those docket sheets 

since the docket of the Second District in this case is publicly accessible.

Defense Exhibit B

Next Thompson seeks to have the record expanded to include “Defense Exhibit B”, a 

document that purports to be the work schedule of Thompson’s co-defendant Bradley Burns and 

which Thompson claims his trial lawyer should have used to impeach Burns’ girlfriend Kaitlyn 

Kerg who claimed to have heard Burns and Thompson planning the crime in suit. The Court had 

originally denied adding the exhibit to the record on the basis of Pinholster, but then corrected 

itself upon finding that the exhibit had been admitted in evidence (ECF No. 33, PageID 2300). At 

the time of the correction, the Magistrate Judge stayed the case pending exhaustion of the relevant 

claim and invited Thompson to renew the motion after exhaustion. Id.

Because Defense Exhibit B was considered by the Ohio courts in adjudicating Thompson’s 

case, it may also be considered by this Court. That consideration, however, is not de novo, but 

rather in the context of deciding whether the state court’s decision is an unreasonable application 

of clearly established Supreme Court law or an unreasonable determination of the facts, based on 

the evidence before the state courts, which includes Defense Exhibit B. Respondent asserts 

Case: 3:18-cv-00117-TMR-MRM Doc #: 80 Filed: 06/12/20 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 3044
3

Defense Exhibit B is already in this Court’s record at ECF No. 25, but there is no attached Exhibit 

B. Nor is it attached to Petitioner’s instant Motion. Without deciding its relevance, the Court 

GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to include Defense Exhibit B in this Court’s record. Petitioner shall 

submit a copy of that document forthwith. If Respondent disputes the authenticity of the copy, he 

may file an authenticated copy from the Common Pleas Court’s records.

The balance of Petitioner’s motion includes arguments which need not be adjudicated to 

decide if the record should be expanded.

June 12, 2020.

s/ Michael R. Merz

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 3:18-cv-00117-TMR-MRM Doc #: 80 Filed: 06/12/20 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 3045