Stevens

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

RONALD STEVENS, Pro Se, ) Case No.: 3:26 CV 268

)

Petitioner ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

)

v. )

)

WARDEN JAY FORSHEY, et al., )

)

Respondents ) ORDER

Currently pending in the above-captioned case is Warden Jay Forshey’s (““Respondent” or

the “Warden’”) Motion for Writ of Certiorari to the Lucas County Clerk of Court, (ECF No. 7), filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651.' Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(2), this case was previously referred to

Magistrate Judge Darrell A. Clay (“Judge Clay” or the “Magistrate”). Thus, Judge Clay prepared a

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 8), on Respondent’s Motion, recommending it be

denied. For the reasons below, the court adopts the R&R, and denies the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On February 2, 2026, Petitioner Ronald Stevens (“Stevens”) initiated this lawsuit by filing

! The All Writs Act at 28 U.S.C. § 1651 provides: “The Supreme Court and all courts

established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of

their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”

a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,’ (ECF No. 1, Pet.), challenging his

2021 criminal trial in the Lucas County Court, and seeking dismissal of his numerous felony

convictions.’ This Order, however, concerns the interim matter of Respondent seeking a Writ of

Certiorari from the Magistrate Judge, to require the Lucas County Common Pleas Court to produce

trial and sentencing transcripts from Stevens’ state court case. (ECF No. 7, Mot.)

After the Section 2254 Petition was filed, this case was automatically referred to the

Magistrate, and on March 2, 2026, the Magistrate ordered Respondent to file an Answer/Return of

Writ to the Petition within sixty days, in compliance with the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

(ECF No. 5, Initial Order at PageID 32.) The Magistrate’s Initial Order also indicated: “As part of

the Return of Writ, Respondent must provide copies of all transcripts, opinions,

indictments/informations, affidavits, orders, and docket sheets pertaining to the proceedings from

which Petitioner seeks relief in this Court.” (/d.) Of these requirements, the one at issue here is that,

“[the Magistrate] directed Respondent . . . [to] submit a copy of the state court record, including

transcripts of the relevant criminal proceedings.” (R. & R. at PageID 42.)

However, on April 9, 2026, in lieu of filing an Answer/Return of Writ, the Warden instead

2 Stevens’ convictions were affirmed on December 21, 2023, by the Sixth District

Court of Appeals for Lucas County, and the Supreme Court of Ohio denied his

request for its review of the decision. (/d. at PageID 2-3.) On July 3, 2024, Stevens’

Application to Reopen Direct Appeal Pursuant to Appellate Rule 26(B), was denied

by the Sixth District Court of Appeals without a hearing. (/d. at PageID 3-4.) Stevens

again sought review by the Supreme Court of Ohio, but it denied review on January

28, 2025, notwithstanding one dissenting opinion. (/d. at PageID 3, 5.)

3 Stevens was sentenced in state criminal court for: nine counts of rape, six counts of

sexual battery, eleven counts of gross sexual imposition, and three counts of

pandering obscenity involving a minor. (Pet. at PageID 1.)

-2-

filed the instant Motion for Writ of Certiorari. (ECF No. 7.) Accordingly,’ on April 22, 2026, the

Magistrate issued an R&R, (ECF No. 8), on the discrete issue of the Warden’s request that he issue

a Writ of Certiorari. The R&R recommends the Motion be denied. (/d.) On May 5, 2026, the Warden

timely filed his Objection. (ECF No. 9.) The matter is now ripe.

Il. LEGAL STANDARD

When a court receives timely written objections to a magistrate judge’s R&R, it “shall make

a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to

which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This de novo review is limited to issues a party

specifically identifies and challenges, so a “general objection, or one that merely restates the

arguments previously presented is not sufficient.” Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs.,

932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004).

Without specific objections, “[t]he district court’s attention is not focused on any specific issues for

review, thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate useless. ... wast[ing] judicial resources

rather than saving them, and run[ning] contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates Act.” Aldrich, 327

F, Supp. 2d at 748 (citing Howard, 932 F.2d at 509). Thus, a court that receives general objections

to a magistrate’s R&R, “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record

in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes; see also,

e.g., Overholt v. Green, No. 1:17-CV-00186, 2018 WL 3018175, at *2 (W.D. Ky. June 15, 2018)

(citation omitted) (stating courts should not do “reexamination of the exact same argument that was

‘ The referral to the Magistrate “shall include the issuance by the Magistrate Judge for

any order requiring the respondent to answer, .. . or any appropriate order directed

to the matter pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing

Habeas Corpus cases. LR 71.1(f),” which includes the instant Motion. (ECF No. 4

at PageID 31.)

-3-

presented to the Magistrate”); Brown v. Hamilton Cnty., No. 1:19-CV-00969, 2022 WL 2816266,

at *2 (S.D. Ohio July 19, 2022) (citation omitted) (“disregard[ing]” general objections).

Accordingly, the court must determine whether the Objection contains specific objections.

Aldrich, 327 F. Supp. 2d at 749. Insofar as it does specifically object, the court will make a “de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to which

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, insofar as it states “mere disagreements with

the R&R,” the court will review for clear error. Brown, 2022 WL 2816266, at *2.

I. LAW AND DISCUSSION

Federal district courts may grant Writs of Certiorari when “necessary or appropriate in aid

of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

In the instant 1-page Motion, the Warden “requests that the Court issue a writ of certiorari to the

Lucas County Clerk of Court to produce to Respondent and to the Court the ‘sealed’ trial and

sentencing transcripts in State v. Ronald Stevens, Case No. CR20-1186, where it can likewise be

filed in the above-captioned case under seal.” (Mot. at PageID 37.) The referenced transcripts were

sealed by the Appellate District Court during Stevens’ direct appeal, upon the State requesting that

the court “restrict public access to the transcripts of the trial proceedings.” (R. & R. at PageID 42;

Mot. Ex. A, Direct Appeal Ct. Order at PageID 39-41.) The Warden makes no other arguments as

to why granting a Writ of Certiorari is appropriate in this case.

A. Magistrate’s Report & Recommendation

The Magistrate found that the fundamental principle of comity counsels against issuing a

Writ of Certiorari at this time. The R&R explains that federal courts generally “abstain[] from

overriding a state court’s order sealing or protecting court records from public access,” and that “[i]n

-4-

this case, granting... a writ of certiorari directing the Lucas County Clerk of Court to provide copies

of those transcripts to the State and the Court would effectively override the Sixth District’s order

restricting public access under Ohio Superintendence Rule 45(E).” (R. & R. at PageID 44.)

Moreover, the Magistrate notes that “the Ohio Rules of Superintendence provide an avenue for the

State to obtain the requested transcripts,” under Rule 45(F)(1), so the court’s intervention is not

necessary. (/d.) In Conclusion and Recommendation, the Magistrate recommended that this court:

e DENY the State’s Motion for a Writ of Certiorari (ECF #7);

e ORDER the State to seek relief from the order restricting

public access in the appropriate state court;

e ORDER that if the State succeeds in lifting or modifying that

order in the state court, then it must file (1) on the public

docket of this Court redacted transcripts (as prepared by the

State), and (ii) under seal unredacted copies of the transcripts;

and

e ORDER that if the State cannot obtain relief from the sealing

order, then it must submit an application to this Court

establishing extraordinary or other circumstances calling for

federal intervention in the unsealing of the State court records

at issue.

(Id. at PageID 45.)

B. Respondent’s Objection

In the Objection, the Warden does not argue with the R&R’s finding that the Writ of

Certiorari should be denied based on principles of comity, or that this court should avoid overriding

a state court’s protective order. To the contrary, the Warden indicates he is now “actively seeking

the transcripts through the state courts.” (Obj. at PageID 51.) Because the Objection does not

challenge any of the R&R’s reasoning and support for denying the Motion, the court need only

-5-

ensure there 1s no clear error before adopting those findings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee

Notes. Especially given the Warden is now pursuing relief in the state court, the court’s review of

the R&R finds no clear error in its reasoning and ultimate finding that the Motion should be denied.

However, the Warden specifically objects to a single line of the R&R’s Conclusion, thereby

triggering de novo review of that specific issue. Namely, the Warden “wish[es] to object to the

R&R’s third bullet point — that redacted copies should be filed on the public docket for this case and

that unredacted copies should be filed under seal.” (Obj. at PageID 51.) He contends that the copies

filed on their docket should be sealed, “request[ing] that the Court order that only the unredacted

transcripts, once obtained, be filed under seal in this matter.” (/d. at PageID 52.) Thus, the court will

now address whether the transcripts must be filed exclusively under seal, and should be kept off of

the court’s public docket in any form.

1, The Warden’s Objection to Request the Sealing of Court Records

The Objection challenges the R&R only insofar as it states that the transcripts should be

placed on the public docket in redacted form, contending that they must be fully sealed instead. It

is well-established that federal courts adhere to a “‘strong presumption in favor of openness’ as to

court records.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir.

2016) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C.,710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)).

Court records will be made accessible to the public, unless “[t]he burden of overcoming that

presumption” is satisfied by “the party that seeks to seal them.” /d. Crucially, their “burden is a

heavy one: ‘Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.’” □□□

(quoting Jn re Knoxville News—Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)).

To determine whether to seal records, court must balance the litigants’ privacy interests

-6-

against the public’s right of access, recognizing . . . [the] strong presumption in favor of openness.”

Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 593-94 (6th Cir. 2016).

This includes “consider[ing], among other things, the competing interests of the defendant’s right

to a fair trial, the privacy rights of participants or third parties, trade secrets, and national security.”

Id. In civil cases, records are “typically” only sealed when necessary for “trade secrets, information

covered by a recognized privilege (such as the attorney-client privilege), [or] information required

by statute to be maintained in confidence (such as the name of a minor victim of a sexual assault).”

Id. at 594—95 (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002)). On top

of this, “even where a party can show a compelling reason why certain documents or portions thereof

should be sealed, the seal itself must be narrowly tailored to serve that reason.” Shane Grp., Inc.,

F.3d at 305 (citation omitted).

Finally, a party seeking to seal court records must assert a “clearly defined and serious

injury,” and “must analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing

reasons and legal citations.” /d. at 305-08.

2. Whether the Transcripts Should Be Sealed

As explained above, the Warden specifically objects solely to argue that the transcripts must

be sealed, rather than redacted. He argues in a brief and conclusory manner that the transcripts should

be sealed based on the fact that they were sealed by the court that heard Stevens’ direct appeal. The

Objection, totaling two pages, (Obj. at PageID 51-52), asserts the following:

To show the propriety of sealing a filing, the movant must

demonstrate: “(1) a compelling interest in sealing the records; (2) that

the interest in sealing outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the

records; and (3) that the request is narrowly tailored.” Kondash v. Kia

Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019). That

-7-

standard is met here.

To start, these transcripts are already filed under seal. Courts

have previously found a compelling interest in the efforts to maintain

the seal on documents already under seal. See e.g. [sic] Caudill Seed

& Warehouse Co. v. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-82,

2017 WL 3220470, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118712, at *19 (W.D. Ky.

July 28, 2017). Moreover, the interest in sealing outweighs the

public’s interest in accessing the records, because these records are

already sealed by order of the Sixth Appellate District for Lucas

County due to the sensitive, confidential, and identifying information

of the minor victims. As such, the public’s interest is not impacted by

this Court continuing to keep the documents under seal.

(Obj. at PageID 52.) In essence, the Warden contends this court should seal the transcripts because

they were previously sealed by the state appellate court. He argues that another court sealing the

transcripts is proof that there is “[s]omething in these transcripts [that] is so unique or pervasive that

redaction was not enough to protect these children’s privacy,” and further argues they must be sealed

because: “[i]f the state court believed that redacting portions of the trial transcripts were sufficient

to protect the children’s identities, it would have ordered so.” (/d. at PageID 51-52.) Considering

these arguments, the court must determine whether there is a demonstrated “compelling reason” to

seal the court records, and then whether the requested seal is “narrowly tailored to serve that reason.”

Shane Grp., Inc., F.3d at 305 (citation omitted).

The court finds that the Warden falls short of establishing a compelling reason justifying non-

disclosure of court records. His argument for sealing court records is based only on the fact that the

state appellate court previously decided to seal the transcripts, but that is not persuasive. Separate

and apart from the state court’s decision, this court has an “independent duty” to determine whether

to seal records on its docket and “deny public access to court documents.” Rudd Equip. Co., Inc., 834

F.3d at 592-93. And, in so doing, the court is “bounded by a ‘long-established legal tradition’ of the

-8-

‘presumptive right of the public to inspect and copy judicial documents and files.’” /d. (citing

Knoxville News—Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d at 474). In fact, a court that seals any part of the record has

an “obligation to explain the basis for sealing court records [that] is independent of whether anyone

objects to it.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 306. Thus, the Warden’s objection to filing redacted

transcripts on the public docket cannot prevail based on the circular argument that the records being

sealed by the state court is proof that they must be sealed by this court. That is a false equivalence,

because regardless, this court cannot seal records without “set[ting] forth specific findings and

conclusions ‘which justify nondisclosure to the public.’” /d. at 305 (quoting Brown & Williamson,

710 F.2d at 1176). And, the Warden has not made the necessary showing for the court to properly

seal court records at this time.

Notably, the Warden’s objection does not include the “proponent of sealing[’s]... analy[sis]

in detail, document by document, [of] the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal

citations,” as required. /d. at 305—06. Instead, the Warden merely offers “scant evidence in favor of

sealing the court record.” Rudd Equip. Co., Inc., 834 F.3d at 594. He does not discuss the competing

interests of sealing versus disclosing the transcripts, nor adequately address the public’s “common

law right of access to court filings.” Jd. at 595. Moreover, he does not identify a “clearly defined and

serious injury” with “specificity,” Shane Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 308, and does not explain how a

specific compelling interest outweighs the public’s “strong interest in obtaining the information

contained in the court record.” /d. at 305. As a result, the court cannot effectively “balance[] the

competing interests prior to sealing,” id. at 306 (citation omitted), let alone find that balance weighs

against the “presumptive right of the public to inspect and copy judicial documents and files.” Rudd

Equip. Co., Inc., 834 F.3d at 595. Thus, sealing the transcripts is not justified at this time.

-9-

Notwithstanding the above, the court acknowledges this case involves victims that are

minors, and so is in one of the few category of cases where portions of the record are often sealed

to protect the privacy of minors. See, e.g., id. at 594-95. Still, absent the requisite showing, the court

will not preemptively decide the public must be denied all access to the transcripts. Although courts

do routinely seal records to conceal minor victims’ identities, those sealings still must be supported

by a party’s “show[ing] a compelling reason for sealing,” and “why those reasons outweigh the

public interest in access to those records and that the seal is narrowly tailored to serve that reason.”

Kondash vy. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Shane Grp., Inc.,

825 F.3d at 305). Here, the Warden has not met the burden to justify non-disclosure; but even if he

had overcome the presumption of open court records, he would still thereafter have to demonstrate

that the scope of the seal is appropriate. Jd. The law mandates seals be narrowly tailored, so a

compelling interest in non-disclosure does not necessarily warrant sealing entire transcripts. Yet, the

Warden does not explain how sealing the transcripts entirely in this case, instead of redacting

portions with identifying information, is nonetheless “no broader than necessary.” Shane Grp., Inc.,

825 F.3d at 306. He also does not explain why redactions such as those already contemplated by the

R&R are inadequate, or otherwise address narrowly tailoring his request to seal. Ultimately, the court

cannot, at this time, order sealing of the records in a manner that according with its obligation to

“explain the basis for sealing,” including “why the interests in support of nondisclosure are

compelling, why the interests supporting access are less so, and why the seal itself is no broader than

necessary.” Id.

In addition, the redacted transcripts are to be prepared by the State, so it will be able to redact

the identifying information with which it is concerned. Or, once transcripts are obtained from the

-10-

County Court, the State may still move the Magistrate Judge to seal specific portions of the

transcripts, if it thinks appropriate. With that said, the court cautions that any future requests to seal

must state a specific injury if portions are not sealed, identify a compelling interest outweighing the

public’s interest in open records, and ensure the desired seal is tailored accordingly, sealing no more

than necessary.

In sum, the Warden’s objection to filing redacted transcripts on the public docket fails.

Moreover, given the lack of any other objections to the R&R, the court otherwise “need only satisfy

itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes. The court carefully reviewed the R&R and record,

including considering the Warden currently seeking relief in the state court, and finds no clear error.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, and after careful review of the R&R and associated record, the

court finds no clear error on the face of the R&R. In addition, upon de novo review, the court finds

Respondent’s single objection failed to meet the burden to establish that relevant court records

should not be made available to the public in redacted form, so the Objection fails. Thus, the court

hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 8), and, accordingly, denies the Motion

for Writ of Certiorari. (ECF No. 7.) As stated in the R&R, the court also hereby orders:

(1) that Respondent seek relief from the order restricting public access in the

appropriate state court;

(2) that, if successful in lifting or modifying the aforementioned order, then

Respondent must both (1) file redacted transcripts (as prepared by the state) on the

public docket, and (11) file unredacted copies of the transcripts under seal; and finally

(3) that, if unable to obtain relief from the sealing order as ordered herein,

Respondent must submit to this court a motion establishing extraordinary or other

-11-

circumstances establishing federal intervention in the unsealing of these state court

records is appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

July 1, 2026

-12-