On Thursday, January 30, 2025, Pele K. Bradford filed a complaint for writ of procedendo in the Supreme Court of Ohio against multiple judges from the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. The case was initiated as Bradford alleges undue delays in the court’s response to his motion to vacate a void judgment in an ongoing legal matter.
Bradford, who is currently incarcerated at the Ohio State Penitentiary, claims that his motion, filed on December 19, 2024, has not been acted upon in a timely manner. He argues that this delay is unlawful and asserts that it has resulted in his continued, unjust confinement. In his filing, he cites a precedent from the 1847 case State ex rel. Kemper v. Beecher, which stated that each day of continued custody constitutes a distinct legal transgression.
The complaint identifies the respondents as a group of judges from the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, including Honorable Judge Wende C. Cross, Honorable Judge Lisa C. Allen, and several others. Bradford’s motion for relief seeks a court order requiring these judges to proceed to judgment on his motion to vacate the prior ruling, as well as to cover the costs associated with this legal action.
In a detailed section of his complaint, Bradford reiterates that his motion to vacate is based on a valid jurisdictional claim and pertains to a judgment he describes as void. He argues that the extraordinary relief sought through the writ of procedendo is justified due to the accelerating nature of what constitutes undue delay in his case.
In support of his claims, Bradford has attached a notice to the Supreme Court of Ohio, asserting that the attached documents are accurate copies of the original filings. He emphasizes that the matter at hand is serious and not merely a legal formality, referencing a previous case to illustrate his point.
Bradford’s legal strategy also includes a waiver of his right to sue the State of Ohio for wrongful imprisonment related to this case. He specifically states that he has no intention of seeking compensation for any wrongful confinement that may arise from the outcome of his motion to vacate.
Additionally, Bradford has granted Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney Connie Pillich the authority to arrange an unrecorded ex parte meeting with the assigned judge in his case. This meeting’s purpose, according to Bradford, is to facilitate his immediate release from confinement. He asserts that this arrangement should only proceed if the intent is to achieve his release.
In a broader context, Bradford also expressed concerns about a loophole in Ohio law that he believes could be exploited by convicted sex offenders to seek relief from their convictions. He has stated that if his situation does not improve, he will assist numerous offenders in filing for similar relief across Ohio and other states where he believes such strategies may be applicable.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
