Opinion
Case No. 3:06-cv-108.
October 18, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
This habeas corpus action is before the Court on Petitioner's second Motion to Supplement the Record with transcripts of both of his arraignment hearings in the Clark County Common Pleas Court (Doc. No. 12).
The Court denied Petitioner's first motion (Doc. No. 8) but ordered the Respondent to file an amended answer indicating what transcripts were available. In doing so, Respondent admitted that Petitioner had been arraigned twice. The State indicated that the first arraignment had been recorded but not transcribed because the charges in that case (Clark County Case No. 03 CR 0042) had been dismissed. The docket sheet furnished for that case, attached as an exhibit to the Amended Answer, shows that the case was in fact dismissed on February 3, 2003, because defendants had been re-indicted in Case No. 03 CR 0067. That docket does not show any conviction and sentence for Petitioner.
In his second Motion to Supplement, now pending before the Court, Petitioner asserts that "[t]he transcripts will support claims raised and it will show how petitioner's 5th, 14th Amendments, Just Due Process, and Title 28 U.S.C. 1655 were violated."
The Court simply does not understand Petitioner's argument. 28 U.S.C. § 1655 is about lien enforcement and has nothing to do with criminal defendants. Beyond that, Petitioner has failed to explain to the Court what he thinks the arraignment transcript in the dismissed case will show which will have any relevance to the case on which he was convicted and sentenced.
The second Motion to Supplement the Record is denied.