United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
ADAM D. TAYLOR, Petitioner,
WARDEN, NOBLE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.
George C. Smith Magistrate
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of
habeas corpus. Petitioner seeks release from confinement
imposed pursuant to a state-court judgment in a criminal
action. This case has been referred to the Undersigned
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Columbus General
Order 14-1 regarding assignments and references to United
States Magistrate Judges.
has filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) Upon consideration, the
undersigned finds the motion to be meritorious and it is
GRANTED. Petitioner shall be
PERMITTED to prosecute this action without
prepayment of fees or costs and judicial officers who render
services in this action will do so as if costs had been
matter is before the Court on its own motion under Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts (“Rule 4”). Pursuant to Rule 4,
the Court conducts a preliminary review to determine whether
“it plainly appears from the face of the petition and
any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief. . . .” if it does so appear, the petition must
be dismissed. Id. These are the circumstances here.
pleadings are unintelligible, and the Court cannot decipher
the nature of Petitioner's claims. Therefore, this action
is subject to dismissal under Rule 2(c) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts, which provides that the Petitioner must specify the
nature of his grounds for relief and state the facts in
support of each ground. Dismissal under Habeas Rule 2(c) is
appropriate in cases where it is impossible to determine from
the petitioner's pleadings the exact errors of fact or
law raised for adjudication. See Rice v. Warden, No.
1:14-cv-732, 2015 WL 5299421, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 9, 2015)
(dismissal under Rule 2(c) appropriate where pleadings
contain unintelligible and conclusory allegations and
statements) (citations omitted); Accord v. Warden,
Lebanon Corr. Inst., No. 2:12-cv-355, 2013 WL 228027, at
*3 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2013) (while the court liberally
construes a pro se prisoner's pleadings, it is
not required to “conjure allegations” on the
petitioner's behalf) (citations omitted)). “Habeas
Rule 2(c) is ‘more demanding' than Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a), which requires in ‘ordinary civil
proceedings' that the complaint ‘provide
‘fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests.'” McClure v.
Warden, London Corr. Inst., No. 1:16-cv-729, 2018 WL
1452253, at *4 (S.D. Ohio March 1, 2018) (citing Mayle v.
Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655-56 (2005); McFarland v.
Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 860 (1994)).
“‘Notice' pleading is insufficient in the
habeas context, as the petitioner is expected to state facts
that point to a real possibility of constitutional
error.” Id. (citing Johnson v.
Sheldon, No. 3:14-cv-1675, 2015 WL 3650695, at *2 (N.D.
Ohio June 11, 2015) (other citations omitted)).
the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this
action be DISMISSED unless Petitioner
resubmits his habeas petition within FOURTEEN (14)
DAYS, stating the basis for each of his claims for
relief, and the factual grounds in support. Petitioner is
cautioned that he can comply with this Order only by
separating each ground for relief and setting forth all the
facts that support that particular claim. For ease of
reference, the Clerk is DIRECTED to forward
to Petitioner another form Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §
party objects to this Report and Recommendation,
that party may, within fourteen days of the date of this
Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to
those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made, together with supporting authority for the
objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this
Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1).
parties are specifically advised that failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a
waiver of the right to have the district judge review the
Report and Recommendation de novo, and also operates
as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the
District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
parties are further advised that, if they intend to file an
appeal of any adverse decision, they may submit arguments in
any objections filed, regarding ...