Gordon v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL LEE GORDON,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
Case No. 2:25-cv-433
JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE
Magistrate Judge Merz
OPINION AND ORDER
In his April 25, 2025, Report and Recommendation (R&R, Doc. 4, #27)
Magistrate Judge Merz recommends that the Court dismiss Petitioner Michael Lee
Gordon’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 3) because the Court lacks
jurisdiction over it. Gordon objected. (Doc. 6). After this Court recommitted the
matter to the Magistrate Judge to consider Gordon’s objections, Magistrate Judge
Merz issued a Supplemental R&R, once again recommending this Court dismiss the
petition. (Doc. 8). Gordon again objected to that Supplemental R&R. (Doc. 9). This
Court recommitted the matter once again, (Doc. 12), leading Magistrate Judge Merz
to issue a second Supplemental R&R, (Doc. 13). And Gordon objected to that as well.
(Doc. 14). Beyond that, in his objections to the first Supplemental R&R, Gordon also
had moved to add more respondents to his petition. (Doc. 9). Magistrate Judge Merz
denied that request, (Doc. 10), and Gordon objected to that order and moved for
reconsideration, (Doc. 11).
Case: 2:25-cv-00433-DRC-MRM Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
But while the road has been long, it ends here. The Court agrees that it lacks
jurisdiction over Gordon’s Petition (Doc. 3). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES
Gordon’s objections (Docs. 6, 9, 11, 14), ADOPTS the R&R and two Supplemental
R&Rs (Docs. 4, 8, 13), and DISMISSES this matter WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
In 1999, the government indicted Petitioner Michael Lee Gordon for engaging
in multiple armed robberies. (Pet. Doc. 3, #15). That earned him convictions in the
Southern District of Ohio for seven Hobbs Act robberies (under 18 U.S.C. § 1951) and
seven related firearms offenses (under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). (Id. (citing United States
v. Gordon, No. 2:97-cr-167-6)). Those convictions resulted in a sentence of 1,651
months—a little over 137 years—imprisonment. (Id.). Separately, the State of Ohio
charged him in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas with involuntary
manslaughter, kidnapping, and felonious assault. (Id. (citing Case No. 01-cr-3612)).
A jury convicted him of those offenses as well, and he received a sentence of 19 years
imprisonment, to run consecutively to his federal sentence. (Id.). Gordon has filed
many appeals regarding both of these sentences in the intervening twenty years. (Id.
at #15–16).
Now, he is imprisoned in an Iowa Department of Corrections facility “as part
of an intra [sic] state compact transfer.” (Id. at #15). In his writ of habeas corpus,
which he filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Gordon takes issue with several aspects of his
transfer there. First, he alleges that Iowa’s Department of Corrections does not
provide adequate resources in its electronic law library and thus interferes with his
Case: 2:25-cv-00433-DRC-MRM Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
access to the courts. (Id. at #16–17). Second, he “challenge[s] the execution of his
sentence or confinement that is not the result of a criminal court’s judgment.” (Id. at
#16). Lastly, and perhaps most immediately concerning, he argues against his
transfer to the Iowa Department of Corrections on grounds that his safety is at risk,
as evidenced by a recent attack. (Id. at #17–18).
Magistrate Judge Merz preliminarily reviewed the petition. (Doc. 4, #27). In
his R&R regarding that review, he advised the Court to dismiss the petition because
the Court lacks jurisdiction over the proper respondent, the Iowa Department of
Corrections. (Id.). As Magistrate Judge Merz noted, and as Gordon himself seems to
concede, (see Doc. 3, #17), a habeas petition “must be brought in the District where a
petitioner is confined,” (Doc. 4, #27). So, rather than filing in Ohio, the R&R said,
Gordon should have filed his petition in Iowa. (Doc. 4, #27).
Gordon did not immediately object to the R&R; instead he filed additional
documentation to support his petition. (Doc. 5). But then he later objected to the R&R
and requested an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 6). Specifically, he objected to the finding
that this Court lacks jurisdiction. (Id. at #47). According to Gordon, jurisdiction turns
more on the place of conviction, not the place of confinement, and this Court, he says,
has jurisdiction over both his federal and state convictions. (Id.). Additionally, he
argues this is the “only court that has jurisdiction over the Director of the Ohio
Department of Corrections,” Annette Chambers-Smith. (Id. at #48). Lastly, he
clarifies that the relief he requests is to “(1) be transferred back to the federal Bureau
of Prisons; (2) to be sent to the Ohio Department of Corrections for the service of both
Case: 2:25-cv-00433-DRC-MRM Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
his federal and State of Ohio convictions; and/or (3) to be provided both federal and
State of Ohio [legal resources].” (Id. at #48).
The Court recommitted the matter to Magistrate Judge Merz, (Doc. 7), who
subsequently issued a Supplemental R&R, (Doc. 8). There, he again concluded that
this Court lacks jurisdiction. The R&R acknowledged that the Court has jurisdiction
over ODRC Director Chambers-Smith, but noted that Gordon did not sue her. (Id. at
#54). Instead, Gordon sued the United States of America. But the entity confining
him is the Iowa Department of Corrections, so that entity would be the proper
respondent. (Id.).
Gordon objected to this R&R as well. (Doc. 9). In those objections, he also
attempted to add as Respondents Annette Chambers-Smith (as ODRC Director) and
an unknown United States Marshal (seemingly to help with a transfer to a different
facility). 1 (Id. at #56–58). But Magistrate Judge Merz denied those additions,
explaining 	that 	(1) Chambers-Smith 	does 	not 	have 	authority 	over 	the 	Iowa
institution in which Gordon is confined and thus cannot grant the relief he requests,
(Doc. 10, #61–62), and (2) the petition does not state a claim against a U.S. Marshal,
(id. at #62).
Gordon once again objected to that order and moved for reconsideration of it.
(Doc. 11). There, he largely reiterated his previous arguments that Chambers-Smith
is the only person able to grant him relief, both as to his access to Ohio electronic law
1 Because the objections sought this additional affirmative relief, the objections were also
docketed as a separate Motion to Supplement, Amend, and Add Additional Respondents.
Case: 2:25-cv-00433-DRC-MRM Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
library materials and to arrange for him “to serve both his federal and State of Ohio
sentences at one (1) State of Ohio institution.” 	(Id. at #63–65). Gordon also added
that his sister is “severely sick,” and she cannot visit him in Iowa because of the
distance. (Id. at #66). So Gordon requested he be transferred to Ohio where she could
more easily visit. (Id.).
This Court once again recommitted the matter to Magistrate Judge Merz, (Doc.
12), who issued a second Supplemental R&R (Doc. 13). There, beyond repeating that
the Court does not have jurisdiction, the Magistrate Judge explained that Gordon
should bring any claims about the conditions of confinement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
rather than in a habeas petition, but that in any event his concerns about his sister’s
difficulty in visiting him are not cognizable under the Constitution. (Id. at #72–73).
And Gordon objected once more, arguing he properly brought a petition challenging
his transfer to Iowa and reiterating that the Court has jurisdiction over Chambers-
Smith. (Doc. 14, #75–76).
With that, the matter is ripe for the Court’s review.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), “district courts review a[]
[report and recommendation] de novo after a party files a timely objection.” Bates v.
Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. 1:22-cv-337, 2023 WL 4348835, at *1 (S.D. Ohio
July 5, 2023). But that de novo review extends only to “any portion to which a proper
objection was made.” Id. (quotation omitted). In response to such an objection, “the
district court may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
Case: 2:25-cv-00433-DRC-MRM Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3)) (cleaned up).
By contrast, if a party makes only a general objection, that “has the same effect
[] as would a failure to object.” Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d
505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, a litigant must identify each issue in the report
and recommendation to which he objects with sufficient clarity for the Court to
identify it, or else they forfeit the Court’s de novo review of the issue. Miller v. Currie,
50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (“The objections must be clear enough to enable the
district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.”).
That said, Gordon is proceeding pro se. A pro se litigant’s pleadings should be
construed liberally and are subject to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
filed by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972); Franklin v. Rose,
765 F.2d 82, 84–85 (6th Cir. 1985). But pro se litigants still must comply with the
procedural rules that govern civil cases. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113
(1993). Moreover, “[t]he liberal treatment of pro se pleadings does not require lenient
treatment of substantive law, and the liberal standards that apply at the pleading
stage do not apply after a case has progressed to the summary judgment stage.”
Johnson v. Stewart, No. 08-1521, 2010 WL 8738105, at *3 (6th Cir. May 5, 2010)
(citations omitted).
For any unobjected portions of an R&R, “the advisory committee notes to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) suggest that the Court still must ‘satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
Case: 2:25-cv-00433-DRC-MRM Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

7
recommendation.’” Redmon v. Noel, No. 1:21-cv-445, 2021 WL 4771259, at *1 (S.D.
Ohio Oct. 13, 2021) (collecting cases).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Gordon has repeatedly objected to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that this
Court lacks jurisdiction, and he has even attempted to cure any defect on that front
by adding Annette Chambers-Smith as a respondent. (Doc. 6, #47–48; Doc. 9, #56–
58; Doc. 11, #63–64; Doc. 14, #75–76). Moreover, because Gordon objected to the
jurisdictional holding in all three R&Rs, (Docs. 4, 8, 13), the Court reviews that issue
de novo. But that does not alter the result—the Court lacks jurisdiction.
As the R&Rs rightly observe, 28 U.S.C. § 2241—the jurisdictional provision in
play here—adopts a bright-line, non-negotiable rule: a petitioner must file his habeas
proceeding in the district where he is confined. As the Supreme Court recently put it,
“[f]or ‘core habeas petitions,’ ‘jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of
confinement.’” Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025) (quoting Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 	542 	U.S. 	426, 	443 	(2004)). 	Gordon 	is 	imprisoned 	in 	the 	Iowa 	State
Penitentiary, (Doc. 3, #19), which is located in Fort Madison, Iowa. Iowa State
Penitentiary, Iowa Department of Corrections, https://perma.cc/P8BL-7R63. Fort
Madison is located in the Southern District of Iowa, Eastern Division. About Us,
United States District Court Southern District of Iowa, https://perma.cc/9D7X-EU6G
(showing district map). So that is where he must file his petition, not here in the
Southern District of Ohio.
Case: 2:25-cv-00433-DRC-MRM Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

8
And “[b]ecause jurisdictional issues precede consideration of the merits and
because the Court concludes they are dispositive here, the Court addresses only
jurisdiction in this Opinion.” Crawford v. Lawrence, No. 1:23-cv-192, 2024 WL
169110, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 16, 2024).
CONCLUSION
For those reasons, the Court OVERRULES Gordon’s Objections (Docs. 6, 9,
11, 14) and ADOPTS the R&R and Supplemental R&Rs (Docs. 4, 8, 13). Therefore,
the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Gordon’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Doc. 3) for lack of jurisdiction. Because the jurisdictional decision
turns on the facts relating to Gordon’s place of confinement, which are not subject to
reasonable dispute, the Court further DENIES Gordon’s Request for an Evidentiary
Hearing, (Docs. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14) and his Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 11). The Court
DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment and to TERMINATE this case on its docket.
SO ORDERED.
November 24, 2025
DATE 	DOUGLAS R. COLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
RMINATE th	th	th	th	th	tttttth	h	th	tttttth	th	th	th	tth	ttttth	h	tttttth	h	tttttttth	h	th	th	ttttth	h	ttttth	th	tttttttth	th	th	tttttth	h	ttttttth	tttttttttttttttttttttttth	ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt is case on its d
LAS R. COLE
D STATES DISTRICT J	JU	U	U	U	U	U	UD	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U	U
Case: 2:25-cv-00433-DRC-MRM Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>