Hutchison v. President Joe Biden

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RANDALL HUTCHISON, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	: 	Case No.: 2:24-cv-3705
:
v. 	: 	Judge Algenon L. Marbley
:
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, et al., 	: 	Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
:
Defendants. 	:
ORDER
This matter comes before this Court on pro se Plaintiff Randall Hutchison’s Motions to
Compel Testimony (ECF Nos. 28–29) and his Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 30) which seek various
relief, including: 	(1) the compelled testimony of CIA Director Ratcliffe, National Security
Director Tulsi Gabbard, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CNN
reporter Madison Mills, Jared Kushner, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Nicki Minaj, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, the European Union, the United Nations, Interpol, the International Criminal
Court, the European Parliament, the United States Congress, the parliaments and consulates of
France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Turkey, Pakistan, Italy, Spain, Germany, Poland, Ukraine,
Norway, Finland, and Sweden, and of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, RTX, and Northrup; (2)
requested testimony of CNN report[er] [Alayna] Treene; (3) release of “all the 6 million Jeffrey
Epstein Files”; and (4) the transfer of “[a]ll records from this case” to the Hutchison’s habeas case
“in North Carolina Federal courts.” (ECF Nos. 28 at 1; 29 at 1; 30 at 1).
Hutchison styles his two Motions to Compel Testimony as being pursuant to Rules 33–37,
59, and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 	But this case has been closed since March
2025, so Hutchison’s request for relief under Rules 33–37 is improper. And this Court previously
Case: 2:24-cv-03705-ALM-PBS Doc #: 33 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
denied earlier motions seeking post-judgment relief under Rules 59 and 60 as being meritless.
Hutchison v. Biden, 2026 WL 265628, at *2–3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2026) (Marbley, J.) (ECF No.
23 at 5–7). 	These new motions may also cite Rules 59 and 60, but they do not advance any
cognizable argument—instead, they abuse the Court. At any rate, they are frivolous and facially
devoid of merit. (ECF Nos. 28 at 1; 29 at 1). The Motions to Compel Testimony are denied.
Next, Hutchison’s Motion to Transfer asks this court to send “[a]ll records from this case”
to “courts in North Carolina Federal courts [sic].” (ECF No. 30 at 1). Hutchison did petition for
a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on
January 23, 2026. Hutchison v. Bondi, No. 5:26-hc-02013-D (E.D.N.C.). But Hutchison provides
no basis for his request to transfer records from this case, other than his belief that this Court and
the Sixth Circuit have “ignore[d] both Federal and International law.” (ECF No. 30 at 1). This
Motion is also denied, but without prejudice to its renewal should Hutchison wish to refile it and
provide a legal basis for his request.1
This case remains closed. 	Plaintiff Randall Hutchison’s Motions to Compel Testimony
(ECF Nos. 28–29) are DENIED with prejudice; his Motion to Transfer Record (ECF No. 30) is
DENIED without prejudice. Hutchison has been warned multiple times of the consequences of
making frivolous filings: being declared a vexatious litigator and facing pre-filing injunctions.2
1 To the extent Hutchison believes that there is something in this record that might inform his
habeas petition before the Eastern District of North Carolina, nothing prevents him from requesting
the Eastern District of North Carolina take judicial notice of this Court’s docket. 	Courts “may
properly take judicial notice of matters of public record.” Megaro v. McCollum, 66 F.4th 151, 157
(4th Cir. 2023). This includes notice of proceedings in other courts. 	See Withhohn v. Fed. Ins.
Co., 164 F. App’x 395, 396–97 (4th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); accord Chase v. MaCauley, 971 F.3d
582, 587 n.1 (6th Cir. 2020).
2 Hutchison v. Biden, 2026 WL 265628, at *4–5 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2026) (Marbley, J.) (ECF No.
23 at 7–9) (citing Hutchison v. DeWine, 2022 WL 683417, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2022) (Jolson,
M.J.); State ex rel. Hutchison v. DeWine, 2023-Ohio-1444 (Ohio 2023); In re Hutchison, 2025-
Ohio-4642 (Ohio 2025)).
Case: 2:24-cv-03705-ALM-PBS Doc #: 33 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
While Hutchison’s Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 30) does not seem frivolous,3 his Motions to
Compel Testimony (ECF Nos. 28–29) continue down the well-trod path of meritless filings that
spew vitriol at the Court and offer conclusory conspiracy theories. 	The Court has tolerated
Hutchison’s invective thus far in light of his status as a pro se prisoner litigant, but any further
meritless, profanity-laden filings will lead to Hutchison being enjoined and unable to continue
filing documents in this matter.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send two copies of this Order to Hutchison: one to
the address indicated on the docket, and one to the address indicated on his more recent filings.
(See ECF Nos. 22-1; 30-1). The Clerk of Court is FURTHER DIRECTED to send a courtesy
copy of this Order—noting that it relates to Hutchison v. Bondi, Case No. 5:26-hc-02013-D—to:
Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
PO Box 25670
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Last, this Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability for this Order and
CERTIFIES to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and should not
be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: March 16, 2026
3 The Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 30) is improper procedurally for a distinct reason: 	it lacks
Hutchison’s signature. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper
must be signed . . . by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.”). One Motion to Compel
Testimony also clearly lacks any signature. (ECF No. 29).
Case: 2:24-cv-03705-ALM-PBS Doc #: 33 Filed: 03/18/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>