Parks v. State Of Ohio

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED as frivolous and that 3 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and 4 MOTION to Quash be DENIED AS MOOT. Objections to R&R due by 3/27/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 3-13-2017. (agm)(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
RACHEL N. PARKS,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action 2:17-cv-128
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Jolson

STATE OF OHIO,
Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner has filed a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct
sentence by a person in federal custody. (Doc. 1). This Court may deny the Motion if “it plainly
appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the
moving party is not entitled to relief.”

Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255

Proceedings. In order to file a § 2255 motion, the movant must be a prisoner in custody under
the sentence of a federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a).
Stated simply, Petitioner’s Motion fails because she is not a person in federal custody and
improperly attempts to challenge a state court judgment. See id. Petitioner has a history of filing
frivolous lawsuits in this Court. This is the fourth case Petitioner has filed—and each has been
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See C.M.B., et al. v. State of Ohio, et al., No. 2:16-cv-757
(Doc. 3 (denying habeas petition for failing to satisfy the “in custody” requirement and
improperly seeking to challenge a state-court judgment)); Clayton M. Bates, et al. v. Richard M.
Dewine, et al., No. 1:16-cv-975 (Docs. 9, 18 (same)); Rachel N. Parks v. State of Ohio, No. 2:17cv-54 (Doc. 11 (same)). Thus, Petitioner is warned that “federal courts have inherent power to
impose appropriate sanctions, including restrictions on future access to the judicial system, to

deter future, frivolous, harassing or duplicative lawsuits.” Levy v. Macy’s, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-148,
2014 WL 49188, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2014). Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned
Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the Petition be DISMISSED as frivolous and
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 3) and Motion to Quash (Doc. 4) be DENIED AS
MOOT.
PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting
authority for the objection(s). A district judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made. Upon proper objections, a district judge of this Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
The parties are specifically advised that 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 13, 2017

/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2