Parrish v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - it is respectfully recommended that Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (ECF No. 39) be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 10/24/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 10/10/2017. (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 A. PARRISH, JR.,
- vs -
Case No. 3:16-cv-486
District Judge Walter Herbert Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION FOR RELIEF
This case is before the Court on Petitioner=s Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (ECF No. 39). Because this is a post-judgment motion, it is deemed referred
to the Magistrate Judge for report and recommendations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Parrish asserts that he “has not filed a Notice of Appeal yet,” but the docket shows he
filed a Notice of Appeal on September 29, 2017 (ECF No. 38)1. Parrish has not yet paid the
$505 filing fee due upon filing a Notice of Appeal, but that does not prevent the Notice from
being effective to deprive this Court of jurisdiction.
Marrese v. American Academy of
Osteopathic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373 (1985); Pickens v. Howes, 549 F.3d 377, 381 (6th Cir.
2008); Pittock v. Otis Elevator Co., 8 F.3d 325, 327 (6th Cir. 1993); Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d
Although the Notice was not docketed until it was received by the Clerk on October 5, 2017, Parrish has declared
under penalty of perjury that he deposited in the inmate mail system on September 29, 2017. Id. An incarcerated
person "files" a notice of appeal when he or she deposits it with prison authorities for forwarding
to the Clerk. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988); Cook v. Stegall, 295 F.3d 517, 521 (6th Cir.
392, 394 (6th Cir. 1993); Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F.2d 1219, 1221 (6th Cir. 1981).
The general rule used to mean that a district court had no jurisdiction to consider a
motion for relief from judgment after a timely notice of appeal. However, effective December 1,
2009, the Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to add Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 which provides:
Rule 62.1. Indicative Ruling on a Motion for Relief That is
Barred by a Pending Appeal
(a) Relief Pending Appeal. If a timely motion is made for relief
that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has
been docketed and is pending, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion;
(2) deny the motion; or
(3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of
appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a
The Motion is directed to alleged error by this Court in deciding Parrish’s habeas corpus
Petition, rather than to raising a new claim for habeas relief. Therefore it is proper for this Court
to consider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1, rather than transferring the Motion to the Sixth Circuit as
a second-or-successive habeas application. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005).
Parrish claims this Court erred in its finding “that appointed appellate counsel, Anthony
R. Cicero, did receive a copy of the amended trial transcript with correct certification.” (Motion,
ECF No. 39, PageID 2252, citing ECF No. 36, PageID 2242). The paragraph of Judge Rice’s
Decision to which Parrish takes exception reads:
Finally, Parrish's argument that he was never provided a free paper
copy of the trial transcript, Doc. #26, PAGEID #2147-48, is
dubious but ultimately immaterial. The record reflects that at least
one of Parrish's appointed appellate counsel, Cicero, did receive a
copy of the trial transcript, Doc. #18, PAGEID #348, and that
Parrish was able to review that transcript; indeed, he has purported
to identify 476 errors and omissions. Parrish does not, in his
Objections, claim that Cicero failed to turn over the transcript upon
his withdrawal as counsel. Thus, Parrish's Objections appear to
center on alleged inaccuracies and omissions in the transcript,
which are not reviewable in this Court.
(Decision, ECF No. 36, PageID 2242.)
The place in the record which Parrish asserts makes the foregoing paragraph inaccurate is
appellate attorney Anthony Cicero’s November 12, 2014, Motion for Extension of Time to Fiel
Brief where is says the “current record on appeal . . . appears not to be complete.” (Attachment
to Parrish’s Motion Objecting to Magistrates [sic] Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion
Requesting for Evidentiary hearing, ECF No. 14 at PageID 183.) Judge Rice did not “miss” Mr.
Cicero’s comment. The Judge cites to the page in the State Court Record that is the official copy
of the same document Mr. Parrish attached to his Motion Objection, to wit, the November 12,
2014, Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief (ECF No. 18, PageID 347-49, as cited in the
above-quoted paragraph from Judge Rice’s Decision.) The dispositive point is that Judge Rice
found Parrish’s argument immaterial.
Parrish also objects that “[t]he Court is also incorrect in its findings when it stated (ECF
No. 36, PageID 2246) that ‘Parrish never sought to correct the record through the method
mandated by Ohio law – by filing a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Ohio Revised
Code § 2953.21.’” (ECF No. 39, PageID 2252). Parrish objects that he did take the appropriate
steps to correct the record (ECF No. 39, PageID 2253). Whether or not the steps he took were
the correct ones, the State Court Record discloses that he never filed a petition for postconviction relief and he does not claim in the instant Motion that he did so. Thus the reference I
n Judge Rice’s Decision to Ohio Revised Code § 29453.21 is not in any way a typograhical or
Parrish includes in his Motion an account of his conversation with “Andrea Larson and
Michelle,” purportedly two employees of AVTranz who related Erik Lige is no longer employed
at AVTranz and that company is no longer in business. From this conversation, Parrish infers
that Judge Dankof’s Entry regarding the record is “false and untrue.” (ECF No. 39, PageID
2253. The facts in this portion of the Motion was obviously inadmissible hearsay, apart from the
fact that receipt of evidence beyond what the state courts heard is barred by Cullen v. Pinholster,
131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011).
Based on the foregoing analysis, it is respectfully recommended that Parrish’s Motion be
October 10, 2017.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen
days because this Report is being served by mail. .Such objections shall specify the portions of
the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the
objections. If the Report and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters
occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the
transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate
Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may
respond to another party=s objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?