Hill v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Tyrice Hill, 	Case No. 3:26-cv-2426
Petitioner,
v. 	ORDER
Warden Shelbie Smith,
Respondent.
Pro se petitioner Tyrice Hill, a state prisoner, has filed this action seeking a Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1). Hill challenges his conviction and sentence in
the Lucas County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, case number CR-2004-02741 (“Criminal Case”),
on charges of aggravated robbery.
Hill previously filed a § 2254 petition in this Court challenging his conviction and sentence
in the Criminal Case. In May 2020, he filed for habeas corpus relief, which I denied. See Hill v. Smith,
No. 4:20-cv-997 (N.D. Ohio May 7, 2020). In that same action, Petitioner filed a motion for
authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition, which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied on August 8, 2024. (See id. at Doc. No. 48).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) provides that before a second or successive habeas corpus
application under § 2254 is filed in district court, the applicant must move in the appropriate court
of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application. See, e.g., Keith v.
Case: 3:26-cv-02426-JJH Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/08/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Bobby, 618 F.3d 594, 599-600 (6th Cir. 2010). When a second or successive § 2254 petition is filed in
a district court without authorization by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the district court must
transfer the petition to the Sixth Circuit. See In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997).
This § 2254 petition is the second or successive petition filed by Hill challenging his
conviction in the Criminal Case. And it is not apparent that Petitioner has obtained authorization
from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive petition challenging his
conviction. Accordingly, pursuant to In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45 (1997), this action is hereby transferred
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Hill also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction ordering
his immediate release “on personal recognizance” while his habeas petition is pending. (Doc. No. 5
at 27). Such motions may be evaluated pursuant to the standard applicable to motions for release on
bond rather than under the preliminary injunction standard. See, e.g., Creasy v. Fink, No. 3:22-CV-
00035, 2022 WL 989095, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2022) (citing Rowell v. Palmer, No. 3:10-CV-
00098-LRH, 2011 WL 3502371, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 9, 2011)).
“A petitioner may be released on bond pending a decision on the merits of a habeas corpus
petition where the petitioner shows: (1) a substantial claim of law, and (2) the existence of ‘some
circumstance making the [motion for bond] exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the
interests of justice.’” Hornsby v. Booker, No. 2:06-CV-12608, 2022 WL 36425, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan.
4, 2022) (quoting Aronson v. May, 85 S. Ct. 3, 5 (1964)) (alteration by Hornsby) (further citation
omitted).
Hill has not demonstrated a substantial claim of law. The Sixth Circuit already affirmed that
Hill’s § 2254 petition was untimely and that he failed to demonstrate he was entitled to equitable
tolling. Hill v. Turner, No. 21-4035, 2022 WL 17411278 (6th Cir. May 17, 2022). Hill’s continued
disagreement with those rulings does not constitute a valid legal claim.
Case: 3:26-cv-02426-JJH Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/08/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
Therefore, I deny Hill’s motion for a temporary restraining order releasing him on bond
while his petition is pending. (Doc. No. 5).
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-02426-JJH Doc #: 6 Filed: 10/08/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>