Collins v. Warden Ohio Rehabilitation Correctional Center

Filing 43

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 42 Report and Recommendations. Petitioner's 37 Motion to Reopen Case filed by Joshua E. Collins is DENIED without prejudice, and this action will remain stayed and terminated on the Courts ac tive docket pending petitioners compliance with the conditions of the March 12, 2018 stay order. A certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to petitioners motion toreinstate this habeas corpus action (Doc. 37) because under the first prong of the applicable two-part standard enunciated in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 48485 (2000), jurists of reasonwould not find it debatable whether this Court is correct in its procedural ruling. With respect to any application by petitione r to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the request is DENIED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 3/7/2025. (wam)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Joshua Collins,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden, Richland Correctional Institute,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:17-cv-48
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
dated February 5, 2025. (Doc. 42.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that Petitioner Joshua
Collins’ Motion to Reinstate (Doc. 37) his habeas corpus action be denied without prejudice and
that the action remain stayed and terminated on the Court’s active docket pending petitioner’s
compliance with the conditions of the March 12, 2018 stay order. Collins did not object to the
Report and Recommendation.
Title 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b)(1)
authorize magistrate judges to make recommendations concerning dispositive motions and
prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement. Parties then have fourteen days to
make file and serve specific written objections to the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C.
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (substantially
similar).
The Court agrees with the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation. As the
Magistrate Judge set forth, this action was administratively stayed and terminated from the
1

Court’s active docket on March 12, 2018 while Collins exhausted his state-court remedies. (See
Docs. 14, 17, 18.) Collins filed a pro se motion requesting his case be reopened on July 17,
2024. (Doc. 37.) The Magistrate Judge thoroughly reviewed the docket of this case and found
that petitioner still appears to have an available avenue of relief in the form of a delayed direct
appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio from the Ohio Court of Appeals’ November 12, 2019
decision dismissing his appeal. See S. Ct. Prac. R. 7.01(A)(4). The Magistrate Judge, therefore,
recommended denying Collins’ Motion to Reinstate his habeas case on this basis and without
prejudice to refiling upon his compliance with the conditions of the March 12, 2018 stay order.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42) is ADOPTED.
Petitioner’s motion to reinstate this habeas corpus action (Doc. 37) is DENIED
without prejudice, and this action will remain stayed and terminated on the Court’s active
docket pending petitioner’s compliance with the conditions of the March 12, 2018 stay order.
A certificate of appealability will not issue with respect to petitioner’s motion to
reinstate this habeas corpus action (Doc. 37) because under the first prong of the applicable twopart standard enunciated in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85 (2000), “jurists of reason”
would not find it debatable whether this Court is correct in its procedural ruling.
With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the
request is DENIED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal of this
Order would not be taken in “good faith.” See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman, 117

2

F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
S/Susan J. Dlott
Susan J. Dlott
United States District Judge

3