Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. State

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

May 25, 2017

CLIFFORD TAYLOR, Petitioner
v.
STATE OF OHIO, Respondent

          ORDER

          SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         On February 29, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) (ECF No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his state court conviction, after pleading guilty, to two first-degree felony charges of rape of a minor victim by force or threat of force in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.02(A)(2). (R. & R. at 1, ECF No. 12.) Petitioner argues that his Petition should be granted based on the following grounds:

GROUND ONE: A due process claim being forced into punitive segregation as a pre-trial detainee without just cause and stripped of rights.
Facts: Due to sensitivity of charges I was placed in protective custody from December 2013 to December 2014. From December 2013 to June 25, 2014, I was given privileges of exercise at 2 to 3 hours per week, phone privileges, access to publications like a newspaper and I had access to library/law library material. These privileges were very limited due to safety and security under protective custody, but were given regardless of time.
GROUND TWO: A claim of due process violated when losing a fundamental right to exercise under confinement with undue punitive isolation as a pre-trial detainee.
Facts: Due to sensitivity of charges, I was placed in protective custody from December 2013 to December 2014. From December 2013 to June 25, 2014 I was given privileges of exercise at 2 to 3 hours per week. These privileges were very limited due to safety and security under protective custody, but was given regardless of time.
GROUND THREE: A claim of due process where a right to access court was denied due to undue punitive isolation as a pre-trial detainee.
Facts: Due to sensitivity of charges, I was placed in protective custody from December 2013 to December 2014. From December 2013 to June 25, 2014 I was given privileges of accessing the library/law library at least once every two weeks. This access was very limited due to safety and security under protective custody.
GROUND FOUR: A claim of due process when losing right to receive public publications as a pre-trial detainee that is legally available to the public.
Facts: Due to sensitivity of charges, I was placed in protective custody from December 2013 to December 2014. I was given privileges to occasionally watch television and read a newspaper, but this was very limited due to safety and security under protective custody but time and resources were given.
GROUND FIVE: A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a violation of my 6th Amendment.
GROUND SIX: Abuse of discretion because irrelevant factors are weighed when deciding to reverse a plea agreement.

(R. & R. at 2-3.) On March 31, 2016, the court referred the case to Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II (“Judge Knepp”) for preparation of a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”). On July 5, 2016, the State of Ohio (“Respondent”) filed a Return of Writ (ECF No. 9). On July 25, 2016, Petitioner filed a Traverse to Return of Writ ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.