Brown v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Petitioner: James E Brown
Respondent: Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Case Number: 1:2017cv00583
Filed: September 5, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Cincinnati Office
County: SCIOTO
Presiding Judge: Michael R. Barrett
Presiding Judge: Karen L. Litkovitz
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 2, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 59 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 47 ) and SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 53 ). The Petitioner's objections are OVERRULED and the Motion to Expand the Record (Doc. 57 ) is DENIED. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJU DICE. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins on 5/2/2023. (kmc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
August 16, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 53 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:1. The October 4, 2021 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 47) be adopted in its entirety and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be DENIED with prejudice. 2. To the extent that petitioner seeks federal habeas relief based on the ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised in his October 3, 2014 post-conviction petition, these claims are procedurally defaulted and waived and should be DENIED with prejudice. 3. A certificate of appealability should not issue with respect to the claims discussed herein, which this Court has concluded are waived and thus procedurally barred from review, because under the first prong of the applica ble two-part standard enunciated in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 48485 (2000), jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether this Court is correct in its procedural ruling. 4. With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on a ppeal in forma pauperis, the Court should certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith, and therefore DENY petitioner leave to appeal in forma pau peris upon a showing of financial necessity. Objections to R&R due by 8/30/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 08/16/2022. (bjc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
October 4, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 47 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/04/2021: IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: (1) Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus be DENIED with prejudice; (2) A certificate of appealability should not issue wi th respect to the claims alleged in the petition; and (3) The Court should certify that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in "good faith," and, therefore, should DENY petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis upon a showing of financial necessity. Objections to R&R due by 10/18/2021. (kh) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
March 20, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 33 ORDER denying petitioner's 25 Motion requesting trial discovery ; denying 27 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; and denying 28 Motion to provide transcripts. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 3/18/2020. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
August 20, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER ADOPTING 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, the Petition (Doc. 1 ) is administratively STAYED and TERMINATED from this Court's active docket pending petitioner's exhaustion of his Ohio remedies. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 8/20/2018. (mr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
July 31, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be administratively Stayed and Terminated on the Court's active docket pending petitioner's exhaustion of his Ohio remedies. A certificate of appealability should n ot issue. Any appeal in this matter would not be taken in good faith, and therefore Deny petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 8/14/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 7/31/2018. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Brown v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: James E Brown
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?