Taylor v. State of Ohio

Filing 17

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation (re 12 ) in its entirety. The court grants Taylor's 15 Motion for Leave to File a Reply, denies Taylor's 1 Petition, and enters judgment for Respondent and against Petitioner. The court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 5/25/2017. (D,M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

CLIFFORD TAYLOR,
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF OHIO,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16 CV 483
JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

ORDER

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,

-2-

2016, Petitioner filed a Traverse to Return of Writ (ECF No. 10). On August 3, 2016, Respondent
filed a Reply to the Traverse (ECF No. 11).
On April 20, 2017, Judge Knepp submitted his R. & R. (ECF No. 12), recommending that
the court deny the Petition because: 1) Grounds One through Four address the conditions of
Petitioner’s confinement rather than the fact of his conviction or the length of his sentence, and thus,
are non-cognizable claims; and 2) Grounds Five and Six fail on the merits. On May 4, 2017,
Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13). On May 8, 2017,
Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 14). On May 18, 2017, Petitioner
filed a Motion for Leave to Reply (ECF No. 15). On May 24, 2017, Respondent filed an Opposition
to Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Reply (ECF No. 16). The court hereby grants Petitioner’s
Motion for Leave to Reply, and has considered it in reaching this decision.
In his Objections to Grounds One through Four, Petitioner cites cases premised upon 42
U.S.C. § 1983 rather than actions for habeas relief. As for Grounds Five and Six, Petitioner raises
no objections in his filings. By failing to timely object to Grounds Five and Six, Petitioner has
waived the right to appeal this court’s Order as to those specific Grounds. See United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
After careful de novo review of the R. & R. and all other relevant documents in the record,
including Petitioner’s Objections and Reply, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are fully supported
by the record and controlling caselaw. Accordingly, the court adopts as its own the R. & R. (ECF
No. 12) in its entirety, for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge.
The court hereby grants Taylor’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply (ECF No. 15), denies
Taylor’s Petition (ECF No. 1), and enters judgment for Respondent against Petitioner. The court
certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken
in good faith, and that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. Fed. R. App.
P. 22(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2015).
-3-

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
May 25, 2017

-4-