Dixon v. Warden Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

Filing 48

TRANSFER ORDER - Pursuant to In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45 (6th Cir. 1997), the Clerk is ordered to TRANSFER this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for that Court's determination of whether Dixon may proceed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 8/5/2024. (kpf)(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 AT DAYTON
WILLIAM R. DIXON,
Petitioner,

:

- vs -

Case No. 3:11-cv-150
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

WARDEN, Southern Ohio
Correctional Facility,
:
Respondent.

TRANSFER ORDER

This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by Petitioner William Dixon under 28 U.S.C. §
2254, is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen the Case (ECF No. 47).
Petitioner initially filed this case May 6, 2011 (ECF No. 1) pleading the following Grounds
for Relief:
Ground One: The trial court erred when it refused to substitute
counsel, who failed to prepare for trial, which violates the
Defendant’s Fifth, Sixth, Eight, Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendments.
Ground Two: The trial court erred when Dixon was deprived of his
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to ineffective counsel.
Ground Three: The trial court erred when it failed to grant a new
trial based on new evidence in violation of Defendant’s due process
rights.
Ground Four: The trial court erred when Defendant’s due process
rights were violated due to prosecutorial misconduct, specifically
withholding evidence.
1

Id. at PageID 21, 24, 27, 31. District Judge Rose dismissed the case with prejudice on February
11, 2013 (ECF Nos. 22, 23). Dixon’s appeals were dismissed.
Five years later Dixon sought to reopen the case (ECF No. 36). The Magistrate Judge
reference was transferred to the undersigned who then transferred the case to the Sixth Circuit
because the motion constituted a second or successive habeas petition (ECF No. 39). A subsequent
motion to reopen was transferred on the same basis (ECF No. 44). The Sixth Circuit denied
permission to file a second or successive petition in both instances (ECF Nos. 42, 46).
In Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a Rule 60(b)
motion presents a “claim” if it seeks to add a new ground for relief from the state conviction or
attacks the federal court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits, though not if it merely
attacks a defect in the federal court proceedings’ integrity. Gonzalez involved an attack on the
district court’s prior statute of limitations decision on the basis of later Supreme Court law (Artuz
v. Bennett). The Court held this was a proper use of Rule 60(b) and the district court could reach
the motion on the merits without precertification by the court of appeals. However, movants under
60(b)(6) must show “extraordinary circumstances” which will rarely occur in the habeas context
and which are not presented by a change of law. Gonzalez.
In this case, however, Petitioner is not challenging the integrity of the prior proceedings,
but is attempting to add new claims relating to adoption of new Ohio legislation, S.B. 288. Dixon
cannot proceed in this Court without permission of the Sixth Circuit.

2

Conclusion

Accordingly, pursuant to In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45 (6th Cir. 1997), the Clerk is ordered to
TRANSFER this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for that Court’s
determination of whether Dixon may proceed.
August 5, 2024.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

3