United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
DANIEL G. PAYTON, Petitioner,
TIM SHOOP, WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE CORRECTIONAL INST., Respondent.
A. SARGUS, JR. CHIEF JUDGE.
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHELSEY M. VASCURA, 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 the United
States Magistrate Judges.
has filed a motion 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 prepaid.
to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Court (“Rule 4”), this
Court must conduct 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 in the district court . . . .” If it does so
appear, the petition must be dismissed. Id. Rule 4
allows for the dismissal of petitions that raise legally
frivolous claims, as well as petitions that contain factual
allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson
v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). Here,
for the reasons that follow, it plainly appears from the face
of the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, as
this action is barred by the one-year statute of limitations
provided for under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). It is therefore
RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
challenges his February 22, 2006 convictions pursuant to his
guilty plea in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas on
aggravated murder and kidnapping. In a Judgment Entry filed
on March 14, 2006, the trial court sentenced him pursuant to
the agreement of the parties to an aggregate term of thirty
years to life. (Petition, ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID # 14,
20; Judgment Entry of Sentence, ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID
# 41.) Petitioner did not file an appeal. In October 2016,
Petitioner filed a “Verified Motion to Correct
Sentence” or petition for post-conviction relief.
(Petition, ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID # 17.) On April 20,
2017, the trial court denied that motion. (Entry,
ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID # 18.) On December 11, 2017, the
appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
(Judgment Entry, ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID # 45.) On May
9, 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept
jurisdiction of the appeal. (Entry, ECF No. 1-1,
PAGEID # 40.)
29, 2019, Petitioner executed this habeas corpus petition.
(PAGEID # 29.) He asserts that police illegally obtained his
confession, in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436 (1966) (claim one); that he was denied the effective
assistance of counsel (claim two); and that his convictions
violate due process (claim three). Plainly, however, the
one-year statute of limitations bars this Court's
consideration of his claims.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(AEDPA), which became effective on April 24, 1996, imposes a
one-year statute of limitations on the filing of habeas
corpus petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The statute
(d)(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an
application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The
limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application
created by State action in violation of the Constitution or
laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was
prevented from filing by such State action;
(C) the date on which the constitutional right asserted was
initially recognized by the Supreme Court, if the right has
been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made