Morrar v. Warden London Correctional Institution

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. GRANTING Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. This action is hereby DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 12/16/2011. (cw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MAHMUD MORRAR,
Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-574
JUDGE MARBLEY
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING

v.
DEB TIMMERMAN-COOPER, WARDEN,
Respondent.

ORDER
On October 28, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 8, be granted. Report and
Recommendation, Doc. No. 12. This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner’s objections to
that Report and Recommendation, Objection, Doc. No. 14, which the Court will consider de novo.
See 28 U.S.C. §636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
In his single claim for federal habeas corpus relief, Petitioner alleges that he was denied a
fair trial because the Madison County Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction; Petitioner
specifically alleges that the charged offenses occurred in Franklin County, rather than in Madison
County. Respondent moved to dismiss the action as procedurally defaulted and the Magistrate Judge
agreed.

In his Objection, Petitioner again concedes that he did not fairly present this claim

to the courts of the State of Ohio, but he argues the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate
counsel as cause for his procedural default. However, because Petitioner has never presented claims
of ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel to the state courts, those claims cannot serve
to excuse Petitioner’s procedural default of his substantive claim. See Edwards v. Carpenter, 529
U.S. 446, 451-52 (2000)(In order to excuse a procedural default, a claim of ineffective assistance

of counsel must itself have been preserved for federal habeas review). Petitioner also again refers
to a lack of knowledge on his part as cause for his procedural default. However, as the Magistrate
Judge noted, a petitioner’s pro se status, or claimed ignorance of the law or of procedural
requirements are insufficient to excuse a procedural default. See Bonilla v. Hurley, 370 F.3d 494,
498 (6th Cir. 2004).
For the foregoing reasons and for reasons addressed by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner’s
Objection, Doc. No. 14, is DENIED.
The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 12, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 8, is GRANTED. This action is hereby
DISMISSED.
The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT.

s/Algenon L. Marbley
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
United States District Judge

2