Thompson v. Warden, North Central Correctional Institution

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
CHRISTOPHER JASON THOMPSON, 	:
:
Petitioner, 	: 	Case No. 2:24-cv-4224
:
- vs - 	: 	District Judge Algenon L. Marbley
:
: 	Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
WARDEN, NORTH CENTRAL 	:
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
OPINION AND ORDER
This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by Petitioner Christopher Jason Thompson, is
before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 26) to the Magistrate Judge’s Supplemental
Report and Recommendations, reiterating the recommendation for dismissal he made in his
original R&R (ECF No. 18). Respondent has replied to the current set of Objections.
A litigant who objects to a magistrate judge’s recommendations on a dispositive matter is
entitled to de novo review of the objections by the referring District Judge. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Having conducted that review, this Court overrules Petitioner’s Objections and adopts the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations for the following reasons.
Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his
conviction at a jury trial in the Madison County Court of Common Pleas of intimidation, operating
a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with a firearm specification, and having
weapons under disability.
In his Petition, Thompson pleaded six grounds for relief as follows:
Ground One: Count 1: Intimidation R.C. §2921.03(A). Trial Court
failed 	to 	prove 	that 	Petitioner 	had 	some 	sugjective 	[sic]
Case: 2:24-cv-04224-ALM-MRM Doc #: 32 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
understanding of the threatening nature of his statements and
requests of the dispatchers of the Madison County Sheriff’s Dept.
(GROUND ONE/ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 1 can be further
illuminated on page 1, 1st assignment of error of PETITIONERS
Declaratory statement).
Ground Two: Count 6: O.V.I. R.C.§4511.19(A)(1)(a) with a
firearm specification R.C.§2941.141(A).
Supporting Facts: Trial Court failed to prove that Petitioner was
under the influence and or impaired. There was no implied consent
read, there was no 2255 form, there was no P.B.T. tests taken, there
was no form of S.F.S.T’s performed. There were no dash cam/body
cam video footage captured. (GROUND 2/ASSIGNMENT OF
ERROR #2 can be further illuminated on page 2 of Petitioners
Declaratory statement.
Ground Three: Mr. Steven Fox, who was appointed as councel
[sic] by the court, against Petitioners objections, did not have
Petitioners concent [sic] to speak or enter pleas on Petitioners behalf
or without knowledge. (Further detailes [sic] can be illuminated in
Petitioners Declaratory statement, as well as briefs filed with the
Twelfth Appelate [sic] District Court of Appeals).
Ground Four: ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 4. Trial Court errored
in sentencing Petitioner consecutively in all 3 charges.
Supporting Facts: Count 6: OVI firearm specification mandatory 1
year; Count 9: having weapons while under disability: Count 11:
improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle, all of which are
Allied offenses of the same import. a firearm that was unknowingly
on the floor of a cargo van. (details can be illuminated on pages 3-4
of Petitioners Declaratory statement attached).
5TH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: Trial court failed in proving
that Appellant was/is a mental defective, as Judge Costello entered
a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. A plea offered by Attorney
Steven Fox on 2, 7, 2022. Without Appellant’s knowledge of or
consent and against objection to Mr. Fox’s appointed representation.
(Cruden v Neale 2 N.C. 338 1796 2 S.E. May term; Hans v
Louisiana, pg 14 lines 15-25 of Appellant’s Brief forwarded to the
Twelth [sic] District Court for review).
Mr. Fox did not have legal authority to speak on Appellant’s behalf.
In fact, Mr. Fox and Appellant had not even spoken regarding
Appellant’s case.
Case: 2:24-cv-04224-ALM-MRM Doc #: 32 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Appellant contends that he was treated as a mental defective
(18U.S.C. ch.44).
Judge Costello treated Appellant as a ward of the State, and accepted
Mr. Fox’s plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and proceeded
with court hearings as such.
6th ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: Trial court failed to prove that
Appellant knew he possessed a firearm and that Appellant knew he
belonged 	to 	the 	relevant 	category 	of 	“person,” 	barred 	from
possessing a firearm.
Scienter Requirement Model Penal Code § 2,94 at 27 (refer to pgs.
13-28 of Appellant’s Brief forwarded to the Twelth [sic] District
Court of Appeals for review.
Appellant 	contends 	that 	he 	was 	unaware 	and 	did 	not 	have
knowledge of the firearm being in the van on the floor, and it
certainly was not in the center console, as stipulated by Mr.Gibson’s
false claim, written in his summary (Tp. Vol.11.pg.559 line 1-27),
or better referred to as “A staged picture of gun on floor”
(Tp.vol.1pg.418 line 14).
Appellant, as indicated, did not accept, sign, or exchange any
documents.
Appellant was not aware that the State had a “staged” picture of gun
on the floor of the van until 12/8/2021, when while sitting in the
courtroom waiting for Judge Costello to enter the courtroom, Mr.
Klamo was reviewing the discovery and was holding a picture of the
Colt 1911. (I filed a Petition with the court on 8/29/2022 requesting
for it to be released to an out of state cousin, John Thompson
(Tp.vol.111 pg. 790 line 2-14). That Petition was un-answered and
still remains a question?
(Petition, ECF No. 3).
Respondent asserted each of these Grounds for Relief was procedurally defaulted by
Thompson’s failure to present them as federal claims to the Ohio courts. 	Thompson made no
response to this affirmative defense in his Traverse (ECF No. 16).
The Magistrate Judge concluded Ground One should be dismissed on the merits because
the Ohio Twelfth District Court of Appeals decision on the sufficiency of the evidence was an
objectively reasonable application of the relevant Supreme Court precedent, Jackson v. Virginia,
Case: 2:24-cv-04224-ALM-MRM Doc #: 32 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
443 U.S. 307 (1979). The Magistrate Judge reached the same conclusion as to the Second Ground
for Relief.
Ground Three is a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel which the Magistrate
Judge found was procedurally defaulted because it had never been presented to any of the Ohio
courts on appeal. Ground Four claimed error in imposing consecutive sentences. To the extent
this raised a claim of allied offense of similar import, the Magistrate Judge concluded and the
Court agrees that this is a question of Ohio law only. 	The Supreme Court has held, as the
Magistrate Judge found, that imposing consecutive sentences does not violate the Constitution
(Report, ECF No. 18, PageID 954, citing Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009)).
The Twelfth District found Thompson, over his objection, mentally competent to be tried.
The Magistrate Judge found this was a question of fact entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d)(2), and the Court agrees.
Finally in his Sixth Ground for Relief, Thompson asserted the State had provided
insufficient proof of his possession of a firearm or that he belonged to a class of persons prohibited
from possessing a firearm. On direct appeal he had combined the first part of this claim with a
sovereign citizen theory. The Twelfth District rejected the first part of the claim on the merits and
Thompson did not repeat his sovereign citizen claim in his Petition. The Magistrate Judge found
the competency question was an issue of fact and the Twelfth District’s conclusion was entitled to
deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
After Petitioner objected to the Magistrate Judge’s original Report, the Magistrate Judge
was directed to reconsider the case in light of those Objections. 	In doing so, he noted that this
Court could not conduct a de novo review of the facts as requested under relevant Supreme Court
authority. Petitioner referred to a Declaratory Statement he made in connection with the Petition,
Case: 2:24-cv-04224-ALM-MRM Doc #: 32 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
but the Magistrate Judge correctly held this Court is limited to the factual record before the state
courts by Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011).
Although the State had asserted all of Petitioner’s claims were barred by procedural default,
the Magistrate Judge noted in his Supplemental Report that he had recommended that conclusion
only as to Ground Three because there was no assignment of error on direct appeal claiming the
trial attorney had entered a plea without Thompson’s consent (ECF No. 25, PageID 994).
After the Magistrate Judge filed his Supplemental Report, Thompson again objected, but
raised no specific objections to the Supplemental Report. Instead, he accuses the Magistrate Judge
of abdicating his office (ECF No. 26, PageID 997). The Court disagrees and finds the Magistrate
Judge has performed his duties in this case as specified by the Magistrate’s Act.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Objections are overruled and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Supplemental Report are adopted. 	The Clerk will enter judgment dismissing the Petition with
prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner is denied
a certificate of appealability and the Court certifies to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be
objectively frivolous and should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________________
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
DATED: November 21, 2025
Case: 2:24-cv-04224-ALM-MRM Doc #: 32 Filed: 11/21/25 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>