Hobbs v. Faulkner
| Decision Date | 18 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:17cv441 |
| Parties | Ryan D. Hobbs, Plaintiff, v. Derek Faulkner, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the following Orders and Report and Recommendations ("R&R") of the Magistrate Judge:
The parties were given proper notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-950 (6th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff has filed objections (Docs. 88, 93, 99, 102, 119, 125, 126, 127, 133) and Defendants have responded to those objections (Docs. 89, 94, 95, 104, 107, 108).
Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion Striking Doc. 127 and By Separate Order and Entry Granting Recusal or Magistrate Judge Merz. (Doc. 129); Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt of Court (Doc. 132); and Motion to Expedite Ruling on Non-Final Post Judgments Motions to Consolidate on Appeal. (Doc. 110).
Plaintiff brought a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants. Plaintiff claims Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by violating his right to assistance of counsel and right to jury trial; and for violating his rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). On March 29, 2019, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims and entered judgment. (Docs. 75, 76). Dismissal was, in part, based upon the Court's conclusion that Plaintiff's claims are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because his claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
On April 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. (Doc. 77). Plaintiff then filed five separate Motions for Relief from Judgment. (Docs. 82, 85, 96, 115, 118). The central argument in these motions is that Plaintiff is entitled to relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d) because the judgment entered by this Court is void. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that in dismissing Plaintiff's case, this Court relied upon false statements and findings made by the Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff also filed a number of other motions, including a Motion for Preliminaryand Permanent Injunction (Doc. 101); Motion to Expedite Ruling on Non-Final Post Judgment Motions to Consolidate on Appeal (Doc. 110); Motion to Strike Doc. 127 and By Separate Order and Entry Granting Recusal of Magistrate Judge Merz (Doc. 129); and Motion for Order to Show Cause (Doc. 132).
The Court will now attempt to address the issues raised by Plaintiff so he may proceed with his appeal he has filed with the Sixth Circuit.
This Court shall consider objections to a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive matter and "shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). When objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are received on a dispositive matter, the assigned district judge "must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After review, the district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In his June 28, 2019 R&R (Doc. 86) and July 19, 2019 Supplemental R&R (Doc. 92), the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. 85) be denied. The Magistrate Judge explains that while he initially recommended deferring any ruling on the Motion until the appeal is decided, he now recommends denial.
In his objections, Plaintiff accuses the Magistrate Judge of failing to accept all well-plead factual allegations as true; misstating the law and facts; and refusing to permit Plaintiff to conduct discovery.
The Court notes that the disposition of this case is largely based upon the procedural history of Plaintiff's state court proceedings and federal habeas proceedings. The Court will now summarize those proceedings.
In March of 2008, Plaintiff plead guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition and one count of unlawful restraint. On April 29, 2008, Plaintiff was sentenced to five years of community control, but after he violated the terms of his community control, he was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment on July 14, 2009. Plaintiff did not file an appeal.
On May 10, 2010, Plaintiff filed a petition for post-conviction relief in state court. On June 3, 2010, the trial court denied relief, and Plaintiff did not file an appeal of that decision. Plaintiff filed the first of three motions to withdraw his guilty plea on August 10, 2012. All three motions were denied. The Warren County Court of Common Pleas barred Plaintiff from further filings without leave of court.
On January 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. Hobbs v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Case No. 13cv928. Plaintiff's three grounds for relief were based on a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). However, this Court found that Plaintiff's habeas claim was barred by the statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Hobbs v. Warden, Madison Corr. Inst., No. 1:13-CV-928, 2015 WL 248332, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 20, 2015), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Hobbs v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., No. 1:13-CV-928, 2015 WL 710340 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2015). This Court explained that Plaintiff's conviction became final on May 31, 2008—the thirtieth day after he was sentenced because he failed to take a direct appeal to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals. Id. at *1. Therefore, the statute of limitations for filing his habeas petition expired on June 2, 2009. Id.
In the habeas proceedings, this Court found that Plaintiff was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. This Court explained "[t]he documentary material [Plaintiff] relies on for all three of his Grounds for Relief is material he received from the Mason, Ohio, Police Department and Warren County Prosecutor's Office as the result of public records requests made on April 30, 2012, and May 7, 2012." Hobbs v. Warden, Madison Corr. Inst., No. 1:13-CV-928, 2015 WL 74749, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 6, 2015). Because the first request for records was not until more than four years after Plaintiff plead guilty, this Court found that Plaintiff had not demonstrated diligence in pursuing his rights. Id. at *4. Plaintiff did not appeal this ruling, but over three years later, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment. This Court denied the motion, and the Sixth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Hobbs v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., No. 19-3229, 2019 WL 2601565, at *3 (6th Cir. June 24, 2019).
This background is somewhat necessary to address the objections Plaintiff raises regarding the disposition of Plaintiff's § 1983 claims in this case. Plaintiff continues to challenge the Court's decision to grant Defendants' motions to dismiss in this case. In evaluating a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must take the well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true, but a court is "'not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.'" Long v. Insight Commc'ns of Cent. Ohio, LLC, 804 F.3d 791, 794 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)). Accordingly, Plaintiff's assertion that his federal habeas claim wastimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) cannot stand as a factual allegation which this Court must accept as true. Instead, the conclusion that Plaintiff's federal habeas claim was filed beyond the statute of limitation is a legal conclusion which was decided by this Court in Plaintiff's habeas proceedings. Similarly, this Court's conclusion that Plaintiff's § 1983 claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) is a legal conclusion reached by this Court. (Doc. 75, PAGEID# 1280). Finally, this Court's conclusion that any § 1983 claims Plaintiff seeks to bring against the Mason Fire Department and the City of Lebanon are barred by the statute of limitations is a legal conclusion reached by this Court. (Doc. 75, PAGEID# 1283).1
Plaintiff is correct that this Court has not reached the merits of his habeas claim or his § 1983 claim. Plaintiff is also correct that discovery has not been conducted in this case. However, based on the above legal conclusions, this Court need not address the merits of these claims or consider matters beyond the pleadings. "Trial courts have broad discretion and inherent power to stay discovery until preliminary questions that may dispose of the case are determined." Gettings v. Bldg. Laborers Local 310 Fringe Benefits Fund, 349 F.3d 300, 304 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial