Jordan v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution et al

Filing 3

ORDER denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. It is accordingly ORDERED that this case be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to determine whether Petitioner should be permitted to file a second habeas corpus petition. Case Terminated ( Show Cause Response due by 4/27/2015.); adopting Report and Recommendations re 2 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 3/26/2015. (ds)(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
EASTERN DIVISION
Eric Sean Jordan,
Petitioner,
v.

Case NO. 2:15-cv-629

Rhonda Richard, Warden,
Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner, a state inmate, has filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, seeking to challenge his
March 2005 convictions in the Court of Common Pleas of Harrison
County, Ohio, on two counts of rape.

This matter is before the

court for consideration of the February 20, 2015, report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge, recommending that the
petition be transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as a
successive petition.
had

previously

The magistrate judge noted that petitioner

filed

a

§2254

petition

challenging

the

constitutionality of the same convictions. The petition was denied
by the district court, see Jordan v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional
Institution, Case No. 2:08-cv-632, 2010 WL 58244 (S.D.Ohio Jan. 5,
2010), and the judgment of the district court was affirmed on
appeal, see Jordan v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution, 675
F.3d 586 (6th Cir. 2012).

The magistrate judge correctly noted

that unless the court of appeals has given approval for the filing
of a second or successive petition, a district court in the Sixth
Circuit must transfer a subsequent petition to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
47 (6th Cir. 1997).

In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45,

The report and recommendation specifically advised plaintiff
that objections to the report and recommendation were due within
fourteen days, and that the failure to object to the report and
recommendation “will result in a waiver of the right to have the
district judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo, and
also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.”

Doc.

2, p. 4.
The time period for filing objections to the report and
recommendation has expired, and no objections to the report and
recommendation have been filed.

Accordingly, the court adopts

the report and recommendation (Doc. 2), and the instant petition
for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby transferred to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for authorization for
filing as a successive petition.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is denied without prejudice,
subject to being reopened in the event that the Sixth Circuit
authorizes this court to consider the petition.

Date: March 26, 2015

s/James L. Graham
James L. Graham
United States District Judge

2