Jackson v. Lazaroff

Filing 33

Order Adopting the Interim Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The court finds that Judge Limbert's recommendations are well taken and that the arguments made in the Objection do not establish that Jackson is entitled to su mmary judgment or that a hearing on his Motions is necessary. See Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004) (Generally, the failure to file specific objections to a magistrate's report constitutes waiver of those objections.). Thus, the court adopts as its own Judge Limbert's Interim R&R for the reasons stated in the Interim R&R. (ECF No. 28.) The court herebydenies Jackson's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 9), Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 11), Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13), and Motions to Proceed to Judgment (ECF Nos. 19, 21). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 7/19/2017. (R,Sh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

CLIFFORD D JACKSON, III, Pro Se,
Petitioner
v.
ALAN LAZAROFF,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16 CV 2072

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

ORDER

Currently pending before the court are Pro Se Petitioner Clifford D Jackson, III’s (“Jackson”)
“Civil Contempt of Court’s Order/Motion for Summary Judgment on the Pleading” (“Motion for
Summary Judgment”) (ECF No. 9), “Motion for Default Judgment Demand Hearing” (“Motion for
Default Judgment”) (ECF No. 11), “Notice Affidavit of Truth, Motion; To Dismiss with Extreme
Prejudice. Administrative Notice” (“Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No. 13), and “Motion: Proceed to
Judgment Hearing Requested” and “Motion: Proceed to Judgment. Administrative Notice, And/or
Judicial Notice” (collectively, “Motions to Proceed to Judgment”) (ECF Nos. 19, 21).
The court referred this case to Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert, under Local Rule 72.2,
for preparation of an R&R. On June 13, 2017, Judge Limbert submitted an Interim R&R,
recommending that the court deny each of Jackson’s motions. (Interim R&R 2–5, ECF No. 28.)
On November 14, 2016, Jackson filed his Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that
Respondent Alan Lazaroff (“Lazaroff”) failed to comply with the court’s Order directing him to file
an answer or return of writ to Jackson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition (“Petition”) (ECF No. 1) within
sixty days. (Mot. Summ. J. 1–2, ECF No. 9.) Jackson requests that the court grant his Petition on

this basis. (Id.) Judge Limbert recommended that the court deny this Motion for two reasons.
(Interim R&R 2–3.) First, Lazaroff’s Return of Writ (ECF No. 16) was timely filed on January 27,
2017, after the court twice granted him extensions of time. (Order non-document, 10/31/2016; Order
non-document, 12/20/2016.) Second, Judge Limbert construed Jackson’s Motion for Summary
Judgment as a Motion for Default Judgment and explained that default judgments are not available
in federal habeas corpus cases. (Interim R&R 2–3.)
On December 30, 2016, Jackson filed his Motion for Default Judgment, in which he again
asserts that Lazaroff failed to comply with the court’s Order directing him to file an answer or return
of writ within 60 days. (Mot. Default J. 1–3.) Jackson requests that the court grant his Petition and
that he be given an evidentiary hearing on his claims. (Id. at 3.) Judge Limbert reasoned that, as
with Jackson’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Lazaroff’s Return of Writ was timely and that
default judgments are not available in federal habeas corpus cases. (Interim R&R 3.) Judge Limbert
further stated that Jackson did not make any showing that a hearing on this matter is necessary. (Id.)
On January 17, 2017, Jackson filed his Motion to Dismiss, in which he asserts that he does
not recognize the authority of any judges, prosecutors, or clerks. (Mot. Dismiss 1–3.) In his Interim
R&R, Judge Limbert explained that the Sixth Circuit, along with other federal courts, have
“completely and repeatedly rejected” such a “sovereign citizen argument.” (Interim R&R 3–4 (citing
United States v. McCaskill, 48 F. App’x 961 (6th Cir. 2002).)
On February 21, 2017, and later on March 27, 2017, Jackson filed his Motions to Proceed
to Judgment. In these Motions, Jackson cites Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
governs default judgments, and asserts that he should be immediately released. Judge Limbert
reasoned, again, that default judgments are not available in federal court. (Interim R&R 5.)
-2-

On July 3, 2017, Jackson filed an Objection to the Interim R&R. (Obj., ECF No. 29.) In his
Objection, he argued primarily that he is entitled to summary judgment under Rules 56(a) and 56(c)
and that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
The court has carefully reviewed Judge Limbert’s Interim R&R de novo, as well as Jackson’s
Objection and all other relevant documents in the record. The court finds that Judge Limbert’s
recommendations are well taken and that the arguments made in the Objection do not establish that
Jackson is entitled to summary judgment or that a hearing on his Motions is necessary. See Cowherd
v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Generally, the failure to file specific objections to a
magistrate’s report constitutes waiver of those objections.”). Thus, the court adopts as its own Judge
Limbert’s Interim R&R for the reasons stated in the Interim R&R. (ECF No. 28.) The court hereby
denies Jackson’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 9), Motion for Default Judgment (ECF
No. 11), Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13), and Motions to Proceed to Judgment (ECF Nos. 19, 21).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

July 19, 2017

-3-