Ludwick v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
AARON D. LUDWICK,
Petitioner, 	: 	Case No. 1:24-cv-51
- vs - 	District Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
TIM SHOOP, Warden, Chillicothe
Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections, his Amended Motion for Leave
to Amend Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and his Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery.
(Docs. 62–64.)
I.
Petitioner Aaron D. Ludwick has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Habeas
Petition”) challenging his conviction for four counts of sexual conduct with a minor less than
thirteen years old and one count of sexual conduct with another by force or threat of force. (Doc.
1.) The victim was his daughter. Today the Court is issuing a Decision and Order affirming the
Magistrate Judge’s Decision and Order to deny Petitioner’s Second Motion to Expand the
Record. (Docs. 42, 53, 65.) The Court also is issuing a Decision and Order on the Merits
adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations recommending that the Habeas
Case: 1:24-cv-00051-SJD-MRM Doc #: 67 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Petition be dismissed with prejudice. (Docs. 37, 66.) The Court is overruling Petitioner’s
Objections as to both of these matters. (Docs. 44, 48, 56.)
While the above matters on the expansion of the record and the merits of the Habeas
Petition were ripe and pending before the Court, Petitioner Ludwick continued to vexatiously file
more motions. On November 3, 2025, he filed a Motion to Amend the Petition for Habeas
Corpus to add a proposed sixth ground for relief and a Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery.
(Docs. 59, 60.) The Magistrate Judge quickly issued a Decision and Order Denying Motion to
Amend and to Conduct Discovery. (Doc. 61.) The Magistrate Judge determined that the
Motion to Amend was filed after under delay. (Id. at 1830–1831.) He also concluded that it
would be futile to grant Petitioner leave to amend because the new ground for relief he sought to
add was untimely. (Id. at 1831–1833.) Finally, he denied the motion for discovery because there
was no new ground for relief about which to seek discovery. (Id. at 1834.) Petitioner then filed
Objections to the Decision and Order that are now pending before the Court. (Doc. 62.)
A district court reviews a magistrate judge’s decisions on non-dispositive matters for
clear error as to factual findings and de novo as to conclusions of law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned Decision and Order Denying
Motion to Amend and Conduct Discovery and will overrule Petitioner’s Objections. Petitioner
unduly delayed in moving to add the sixth ground for relief until after the merits of the Habeas
Petition were ripe and pending before the Court. And the Court will not grant discovery on a
Habeas Petition that has been dismissed.
Finally, on December 5, 2025, Petitioner filed an Amended Motion for Leave to Amend
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking to add a sixth, seventh, and eighth grounds for relief
Case: 1:24-cv-00051-SJD-MRM Doc #: 67 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
and another Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery. (Docs. 63, 64.) The Court will deny these
Motions as unduly delayed and futile.
II.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 62) are OVERRULED and his Motions
(Docs. 63, 64) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Susan J. Dlott__________
Susan J. Dlott
United States District Judge
Case: 1:24-cv-00051-SJD-MRM Doc #: 67 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>