Cool v. Miller
Filing
26
Memorandum, Opinion and Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge re 22 . The petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. An appeal from this decision may not be taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge John R. Adams on 5/6/16. (K,C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL E. COOL,
Petitioner,
vs.
MICHELLE MILLER, Warden,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 5:13 CV 1139
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Michael E. Miller’s objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. #23.) For the following reasons, the
Court finds that Petitioner’s objections are without merit. (Doc. #22.)
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Report adequately states the factual background and procedural history of this
matter. Petitioner has demonstrated no error in that background and history. For these reasons
this Court will not restate the relevant portions of the Report here and will instead accept the
factual and procedural history reflected in the Report as written.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Motions made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 are governed by the standard of review set
forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). AEDPA
prescribes a narrow habeas corpus remedy only where a State court adjudication has resulted in
(1) “a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Federal law,” or (2) a “decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of
the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
AEDPA further limits “clearly established Federal law” to those principles “determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). For the purposes of habeas
review after AEDPA, “clearly established Federal law” refers to the express holdings of the
United States Supreme Court “as opposed to the dicta” of that Court’s decisions “of the time of
the relevant state-court decision.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 365, 120 S.Ct. 1495 (2000).
When evaluating a § 2254 petition this Court notes that AEDPA and decisional law
applying its restrictions have clearly stated that a district court may not “apply its own views of
what the law should be” but must issue a writ only where “clearly established federal law” has
been applied unreasonably, not merely erroneously or incorrectly. Bailey v. Mitchell, 271 F.3d
652, 656 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court reiterates:
If this standard is difficult to meet, that is because it was meant to be. As
amended by AEDPA, § 2254 (d) stops short of imposing a complete bar on
federal-court relitigation of claims already rejected in state proceedings. It
preserves authority to issue the writ in cases where there is no possibility
fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court’s decision conflicts with [the
United States Supreme Court’s] precedents. It goes no further. Section 2254(d)
reflects the view that habeas corpus is a ‘guard against extreme malfunctions in
the state criminal justice systems,’ not a substitute for ordinary error correction
through appeal.
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102, 131 S.Ct. 770 (2011) (Citations omitted). The Sixth
Circuit explains:
A state court decision is ‘contrary to’ clearly established Federal law ‘if the state
court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [U.S. Supreme Court] on
a question of law,’ or ‘if the state court confronts facts that are materially
indistinguishable from a relevant [U.S.] Supreme Court precedent’ and arrives at
a different result. A state court decision is an ‘unreasonable application of’ clearly
established Federal law ‘if the state court correctly identifies the correct
2
governing legal rule from [U.S. Supreme Court’s] cases but unreasonably applies
it to the facts of the particular state prisoner’s case. An ‘unreasonable application’
can also occur where ‘the state court either unreasonably extends a legal principle
from [the U.S. Supreme Court’s] precedent to a new context where it should not
apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that principle to a new context where it
should apply.
Ruimveld v. Birkett, 404 F.3d 1006, 1010 (6th Cir. 2005), internal citations, to Williams v.
Taylor, 529 U.S. 405–407, omitted.Where, as here, a party files written objections to the report
and recommendation issued by the magistrate judge, this Court “shall make” a de novo
“determination of those portions of the record or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1). This Court “may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1).
This Court’s review is predicated, however, on a proper
objection. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72 (b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of
the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”) It is incumbent upon the
party seeking relief to file objections “which shall specifically identify the portions of the
proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which objection is made and the basis for such
objections.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72 (b)(3). “An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a
disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested resolution or simply summarizes what has been
presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is used in this context.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327
F.Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D.Mich.2004).
III.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Petitioner objects to the Magistrate’s conclusion that his claims arise from his
interpretation of Ohio state law sentencing requirements under Ohio Administrative Code §
5120-2-04, and, as a state law claim, are not cognizable in a habeas action under 28 U.S.C. §
2254. Petitioner cites State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-856 (2008), in which the
3
Ohio Supreme Court refers to the Equal Protection Clause as the “roots” of the “practice of
awarding jail-time credit” that is “now covered by state statute” and urges this Court to find a
basis for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 review, overlooked by the Magistrate, in the Ohio Supreme Court’s
opinion. Id. at 263. Petitioner is mistaken. As the Ohio Supreme Court noted in Fugate, and the
Magistrate explained in the Report and Recommendation, sentencing in Ohio State courts is
governed by State law. Petitioner has not identified the unreasonable application of clearly
established Federal law expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States necessary to
demonstrate a basis for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See e.g. Kipen v. Renico, 65 Fed.
Appx. 958, 959 (6th Cir.2003): “the actual computation of Kipen’s prison term involves a matter
of state law that is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. §2254” (citing Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S.
62, 68 112 S.Ct. 475 (1991) (in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that evidence incorrectly
admitted pursuant to state law did not merit Federal habeas review because “federal habeas
corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.”)). Petitioner has not identified an error of fact
or law in the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation; accordingly this Court will accept the
findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate. 28 U.S.C. §636 (b)(1).
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, this Court finds Petitioner’s Objections to be without
merit. Petitioner’s Objections are therefore OVERRULED. This Court has reviewed the Report
and Recommendation and, having found it legally and factually accurate, hereby ADOPTS the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
DISMISSED.
4
This Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (A)(3), that an appeal of this decision
could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John R. Adams
_________________________________
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Dated: May 6, 2016
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?