Boyd v. Warden, Pickaway Correctional Institution

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
LAMON BOYD,
Petitioner, 	Case No. 3:25-cv-88
v.
WARDEN, 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
PICKAWAY CORRECTIONAL 	Magistrate Judge S. Courter Shimeall
INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
EXPAND THE RECORD (Doc. No. 25); (2) DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
STAY THE PENDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND STAY THE CASE
(Doc. No. 27); (3) DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S MOTION TO ADDRESS HIS
MOTION TO EXPAND THE RECORD (Doc. No. 27); (4) GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO FILE A TRAVERSE (Doc. No. 27); (5) DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CLARIFY (Doc. No. 29); (6) GRANTING
PETITIONER LEAVE TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE PENDING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION; AND (7) CONFIRMING THIS CASE REMAINS PENDING ON
THE DOCKET
______________________________________________________________________________
Petitioner Lamon Boyd, an inmate in state custody who was found guilty in state court on
two charges of trafficking in persons (“compulsion to involuntary servitude”) in violation of Ohio
Rev. Code § 2905.32(A) (Doc. No. 14 at PageID 415), brings this case pro se seeking a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Doc. No. 8. This case is before the Court upon the
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers
to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).2 Judge Deavers recommends
denying the petition and dismissing it with prejudice. Doc. No. 24 at PageID 2148. Judge Deavers
1 The Court liberally construes Petitioner’s pro se filings in his favor. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
106 (1976); see also Mayes v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., No. 3:22-cv-313, 2024 WL 3163957, at *1
(S.D. Ohio June 25, 2024).
Case: 3:25-cv-00088-MJN-SCS Doc #: 31 Filed: 06/08/26 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
also notified the parties that objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days. Id. at PageID
2149.
Rather than filing objections to the R&R, Petitioner filed three pro se motions: (1) a motion
seeking leave to expand the record (Doc. No. 25), which Respondent opposes (Doc. No. 26); (2) a
motion to stay the R&R and stay the case and to address his motion to expand the record and permit
him to file a reply/traverse (Doc. No. 27), which Respondent opposes (Doc. No. 28); and (3) a
motion to clarify that his motion to expand the record is not his reply or traverse (Doc. No. 29), to
which Respondent has not responded.
I.
Liberally construing in Petitioner’s favor his motion to expand the record, see Estelle, 429
U.S. at 106, he seeks to add to the record “actual material evidence and documents” he describes in
32 detailed paragraphs. 	Doc. No. 25 at PageID 2153-59. 	He contends this evidence relates to
violations of his rights in state court under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 84 (1963) and his
suppression hearing, and includes police reports, testimony not presented, and cross-examination
testimony. Id. Petitioner argues that if such evidence had been produced by state prosecutors, the
charges against him in state court would have been dismissed. Id. at PageID 2153. He argues that
without the expansion of the record to include this evidence he will not have a chance to have a fair
trial (if he prevails on his habeas petition and he is afforded a new trial). Id. at PageID 2159.
Petitioner’s motion to expand the record was docketed one day after the R&R issued. See
Doc. Nos. 24, 25. Given this, there is no doubt Petitioner did not know about the R&R before he
wrote and filed his motion to expand the record. Consequently, he also did not know the R&R
addresses the possible expansion of the record as follows:
2 This case was recently transferred to Magistrate Judge S. Courter Shimeall. Doc. No. 30.
Case: 3:25-cv-00088-MJN-SCS Doc #: 31 Filed: 06/08/26 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
It also appears that [Petitioner] is seeking in Grounds One and Three to expand the
record beyond the scope of materials that were considered by the Court of Appeals.
(ECF No. 8-1 at PageID# 225-232, 236-240). Boyd’s request is prohibited by
Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court held in Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S.
170 (2011), that habeas review by a federal court “is limited to the record that was
before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” Id. at 180. The
limitations in Pinholster apply to expansion of the record as well as to evidentiary
hearings. Moore v. Mitchell, 708 F.3d 760, 780–784 (6th Cir. 2013).
Doc. No. 24 at PageID 2129 (footnote omitted). Within this explanation, in a footnote, the R&R
states, in part, “The exact nature of the materials [Petitioner] is seeking to expand the record with are
unclear, but it appears, at a minimum, he is seeking testimony on off-the-record discussions
pertaining to plea negotiations.” Id. at n. 2. (citing Doc. No. 14 at PageID 226).
Due to no fault of his own, Petitioner’s motion to expand the record is premature because he
did not know about the R&R when he drafted his motion and could not have known the R&R’s
potential impact on his motion. Thus, his motion to expand the record is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to provide him an opportunity to raise his contentions related to expanding the record
in his objections to the R&R.
II.
Petitioner seeks a stay of the R&R and the case so he can file a reply or traverse to
Respondent’s answer to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Doc. No. 27.
The Magistrate Judge previously issued an Order denying without prejudice Petitioner’s
motion for leave to file an amended petition because he had not attached to his motion a proposed
amended petition. Doc. No. 18 at PageID 1489. The Magistrate Judge also granted Petitioner leave
to file a motion to amend his petition, provided him with an attached proposed amended petition, and
gave him 30 days from August 25, 2025 to do so. Id. The Order also granted Petitioner leave to file
a reply to Respondent’s return of writ and instructed, “If [P]etitioner does not elect to file a motion
for leave to amend his petition within (30) days, he shall have until October 14, 2025 to
Case: 3:25-cv-00088-MJN-SCS Doc #: 31 Filed: 06/08/26 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
file a reply.” Id.
Petitioner thereafter filed a motion to amend his petition, which Respondent opposed. Doc.
Nos. 18, 19. The Court denied Petitioner’s motion to amend his petition on January 30, 2026. Doc.
No. 20. 	The Magistrate Judge then filed the subject R&R on February 2, 2026. 	Doc. No. 24.
Meanwhile, Petitioner did not file a reply. 	He explains he was waiting for an Order from the
Magistrate Judge when the R&R was docketed. See Doc. No. 27 at PageID 2172. Petitioner has
also not filed objections to the R&R, perhaps because he seeks a stay of this case and his post-R&R
motions are presently pending.
Because the Court has denied, in this Order, Petitioner’s motion to expand the record, supra
§ I, and because the Court will permit additional time for Petitioner to file objections to the R&R,
there is no need to stay this case. In the interests of justice and obtaining a complete case record,
which is necessary for a full and fair adjudication of this case, and to avoid unfair prejudice to
Petitioner, his motion for leave to file his reply to Respondent’s answer/return of writ, see id.,
Petitioner will be given one last opportunity to file his reply. Given this, his motion to clarify—in
which he argues the R&R incorrectly refers to his traverse when he has not filed one (Doc. No.
29)—is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to raising, if he so desires, as an objection to the R&R.
See Doc. No. 29.
Additionally, nothing in this Order is meant to suggest whether the Court intends to adopt or
reject the R&R. Instead, Petitioner will be GRANTED an extension of time to file objections to the
R&R and Respondent will be provided an opportunity to oppose. Petitioner is placed on NOTICE
that the Court will not extend the deadline for Petitioner to file objections to the R&R absent
extraordinary circumstances. 	The Court will thereafter consider the R&R and the record as a
whole—including, but not limited to, Petitioner’s traverse, if he timely files one; his objections, if
Case: 3:25-cv-00088-MJN-SCS Doc #: 31 Filed: 06/08/26 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
timely files them; and any response Respondent timely files to Petitioner’s objections. 	See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
III.
Accordingly, 	Petitioner’s 	motion 	to 	expand 	the 	record 	is 	DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. His motion to stay the R&R and the case is DENIED. Petitioner must FILE his
reply or traverse to the return of writ by June 22, 2026. Petitioner’s objections to the R&R are due
by June 26, 2026. Respondent may FILE, by July 13, 2026, a response to Petitioner’s objections.
This case remains PENDING on the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 8, 2026 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00088-MJN-SCS Doc #: 31 Filed: 06/08/26 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>