Leach v. Warden Southeastern Correctional Institution

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
JONATHAN A. LEACH,
Petitioner, 	: 	Case No. 2:25-cv-00146
- vs - 	District Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
WARDEN, Southeastern
Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by Petitioner Jonathan Leach to obtain relief from
his conviction in the Madison County Court of Common Pleas, is before the Court on Petitioner’s
two letters to the Court (ECF Nos. 22, 23) filed after the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations (the “Report,” ECF No. 21). The letters were filed within the time allowed for
objections to the Report. The Magistrate Judge accordingly files the instant Report to deal with
the letters.
The first letter contains a narrative account of the facts of Petitioner’s arrest and later court
appearances. This Court is only permitted to consider facts that were of record before the appellate
court which decided Petitioner’s case. Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011). As is true of all
federal judges, the undersigned pledged under oath to defend the United States Constitution. That
oath does not permit this Court to depart from binding precedent to suit the opinions of any litigant
as to how he was treated unfairly.
Case: 2:25-cv-00146-MHW-MRM Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
The letter contains a Motion for Immediate Release (PageID 1172). 	Petitioner has not
shown he is entitled to release, either on bond or permanently, for reasons given in the Report.
The letter also requests a new trial (PageID 1173). This Court is not authorized to grant a new
trial, although if the prior conviction were unconstitutional for violations of Petitioner’s rights that
occurred at trial, the Court would probably issue a writ conditioned on giving Petitioner a new
trial. This Court has no authority to reduce Petitioner’s sentence. His motion for appointment of
counsel is denied for the reasons previously given: insufficient Congressional appropriations to
fund counsel in non-capital habeas cases. The motion to have this judge read all material on which
Petitioner relies is denied, not because “the Government does not care” as Petitioner asserts, but
because the rule of law mandates lower courts to follow precedent set by the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s second letter complains about the Court’s sealing any documents in this case.
In granting the Motion to Seal, the Court noted that Petitioner had not opposed it. The Motion was
filed August 25, 2025, and the docket shows no opposition from Petitioner until this most recent
letter. Despite Petitioner’s failure to oppose, the Magistrate Judge considered the question under
the Sixth Circuit standard in Shane Group, the currently governing standard. 	The undersigned
appreciates that Petitioner is not an attorney and is not represented by one. But the Court must
follow the law as best it understands the law.
The second letter also states that all Petitioner wants is an unbiased judge. If that amounts
to a claim that somehow the undersigned is biased, it lacks the detail required for such a claim
under the disqualification statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455.
Finally, the second letter makes a claim that Petitioner’s Eighth Amendment right not to
suffer cruel and unusual punishment is being violated because he is an innocent man sentenced to
life imprisonment for “fellatio and or cunnilingus.” A jury of his peers found Petitiomner guilty
Case: 2:25-cv-00146-MHW-MRM Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
of committing those acts with a minor child. That is rape under Ohio law and taken very seriously.
Life imprisonment for committing that offense has never been held by the Supreme Court to be
cruel and unusual punishment. 	Petitioner says he is innocent, but the jury (which is not the
“Government”) did not believe him.
Nothing in Petitioner’s two letters requires modification of the pending Report, which
should be adopted.
February 25, 2026.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Because this document is being served by mail, three days are added under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, but service is complete when the document is mailed, not when it is received. Such
objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a
memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party may respond to another party’s
objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections
in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. 
Case: 2:25-cv-00146-MHW-MRM Doc #: 24 Filed: 02/25/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>