Norris v. Reinbold
| Decision Date | 04 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 5:13CV0721 |
| Parties | ROBERT LEE NORRIS, Plaintiff, v. NANCY S. REINBOLD, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
MEMORANDUM OF OPINIONAND ORDER
[Resolving ECF Nos. 4, 5, and 6]
Pro se Plaintiff Robert Lee Norris filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Stark County Clerk of Court Nancy S. Reinbold, Canton City Municipal Court Clerk Phil Giavasis, the former Stark County Deputy Clerk A. Gifford, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) Director Gary Mohr, Bureau of Sentence Computation Chief Melissa Adams, and Ohio Parole Board Chair Cynthia (Cindy) Mausser. In the Complaint, Norris, an Ohio prisoner, alleges his confinement is predicated on an invalid nunc pro tunc entry and that his continued incarceration is in violation of his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. He seeks monetary and injunctive relief. For the reasons that follow, this action is dismissed.
In September 1993, Norris was found guilty of one count of kidnapping and two counts of rape in State v. Norris, Stark Cty. Common Pleas Case No. 92-CR-2871A. The trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of fifteen to twenty-five years imprisonment on eachcount and imposed a fine of $10,000 on each count. Thereafter, on January 4, 1994, the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc judgment entry ordering the Stark County Sheriff to calculate Norris's jail time credit. See State v. Norris, No. 2000CA00235, 2001 WL 300642, at *1 (Ohio App. 5th Dist. March 26, 2001). The trial court's nun pro tunc order, however, only imposed a sentence upon Norris as to the kidnapping charge, omitting the two rape charges. Id. Norris filed a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence and, in February 1995, the state appellate court affirmed his conviction and sentence. Id. (citing State v. Norris, No. CA-9436, 1995 WL 160552 (Ohio App. 5th Dist. Feb. 21, 1995)).
While his direct appeal was pending, Norris filed in this Court a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Norris v. Schotten, No. 5:94CV1221 (N.D. Ohio filed June 15, 1994). On March 10, 1995, the Court dismissed the petition without prejudice because Norris had not yet completed the state court appeals process.
Upon exhaustion of his available state court remedies, Norris returned to this Court and filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus. Norris v. Schotten, No. 5:95CV1545 (N.D. Ohio filed July 17, 1995). In his federal habeas petition, Norris argued the trial court had dropped the rape counts from the indictment, sentencing him only on the kidnapping charge and, therefore, he was entitled to release after the expiration of the sentence on that charge. Several months later, while his petition remained pending before this Court, the state trial court entered a second nunc pro tunc judgment entry correcting its previous omission of Norris's rape convictions from its first nunc pro tunc entry and imposing a $20,000 fine for each of the rapecounts, instead of the original $10,000 fine for each count to which he had been sentenced.1 Norris apparently amended his petition to include objections to the errors contained in the state court's second nunc pro tunc entry. The Court addressed the merits of Norris's claims and denied the writ in April 1996. Norris v. Morgan, No. 5:95CV1545 (N.D. Ohio April 30, 1996) (Gallas, MJ.) (ECF No. 98).
Norris filed an appeal with the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed this Court's denial of the writ on May 26, 1998. In its opinion, the court held:
We understand [Norris's] frustration with the disorderly and confusing method by which he was sentenced in state court. However, we agree with the district court that the August [1995] nunc pro tunc entry was most likely made in order to eradicate any suggestion by the December 1993 nunc pro tunc judgment entry that [Norris's] sentences for the two rapes had been dropped. The reason for the December 1993 nunc pro tunc judgment entry is unclear; what is clear is that that entry as it now stands was made in error. Ohio courts may amend a journal entry nunc pro tunc in order to correct any errors so that the final sentencing entry accurately reflects the penalty imposed at the sentencing hearing. See State v. Greulich, 61 Ohio App. 3d 22, 572 N.E.2d 132, 134 (1988). We emphasize that [Norris] cannot expect to benefit from such clerical errors, especially when there is no valid reason why [he] should think that two rape convictions would carry no sentence.
Norris v. Schotten, 146 F.3d 314, 333 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 935 (1998). The court also questioned the increase in the fine amounts but found a resort to habeas relief was premature because the claim had not been properly presented to the state courts.
In July 1998, the state trial court entered a third nunc pro tunc judgment; this time correcting the fine amounts applicable to each charge and clarifying that Norris was to pay$10,000 on each count of his conviction for an aggregate total fine of $30,000. Norris, 2001 WL 300642, at *1.
Thereafter, on December 30, 1998, Norris filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court attacking his Ohio convictions, which the Court dismissed, in part because Norris had not been granted permission by the Sixth Circuit to file a successive habeas petition and, in part because Norris's claim regarding the increase in fines had not been properly presented to the state courts. Norris v. Konteh, No. 4:98CV3018 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 14, 1999). Norris appealed, and the Sixth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Norris v. Konteh, No. 99-4162 (6th Cir. March 6, 2000).
On July 11, 2001, Norris filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. Norris v. Morgan, No. 5:01CV1676 (N.D. Ohio). Among the grounds raised, Norris argued the 1993 nunc pro tunc entry was constitutionally valid and had a res judicata effect barring the 1995 and 1998 nunc pro tunc entries in the same case. The Court denied habeas relief in October 2002, finding the claim procedurally defaulted because Norris had filed a post-conviction petition in the Ohio court challenging the 1995 and 1998 nunc pro tunc entries but failed to appeal the denial of that petition. The Court further found even if the claim were not defaulted, it lacked merit because, as noted by the Sixth Circuit in Norris v. Schotten, supra, the state trial court could amend a journal entry nunc pro tunc in order to correct any errors so that the final sentencing entry accurately reflected the penalty imposed at the sentencing hearing. Norris v. Morgan, No. 5:01CV1676 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 28, 2002) (Polster, J.) (ECF No. 26 at PageID #: 260) ( ). Norris appealed from this decision, and the Sixth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability. Norris v. Morgan, No. 02-4390 (6th Cir. May 30, 2003).
Norris then filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that he was entitled to retain the sentence set forth in the 1994 nunc pro tunc entry, which excluded the two rape convictions, based on purported findings of law by this Court that those counts had been dropped. Norris v. United States of America, No. 1:04CV0714 (N.D. Ohio filed April 16, 2004). The Court dismissed the action for want of subject matter jurisdiction, noting the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, did not create jurisdiction and finding Norris's exclusive remedy to challenge his sentence was through a habeas petition. Norris v. United States of America, No. 1:04CV0714 (N.D. Ohio July 9, 2004) (Wells, J.) (ECF No. 8 at PageID #: 50) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489-90 (1973)). The Court also concluded habeas relief was not available to Norris because he had already been denied habeas relief on the merits and, therefore, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) required dismissal of his previously litigated claims for relief. Finally, the Court noted even if his claim were not barred, he would be required to seek leave from the Sixth Circuit prior to filing a successive petition in this Court. Norris v. United States of America, No. 1:04CV0714 (N.D. Ohio July 9, 2004) (Wells, J.) (ECF No. 8 at PageID #: 51). In June 2005, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action. Norris v. United States of America, No. 04-4031 (6th Cir. June 14, 2005).
Meanwhile, Norris continued to litigate his claims related to the nunc pro tunc entries in the state courts, filing an action in the Court of Claims of Ohio, seeking an award of damages forfalse and/or wrongful imprisonment. Norris v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., No. 2004-07824 (Ohio Ct. Claims filed August 2, 2004). In that case, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding the alleged clerical errors in the state court's sentencing entries did not affect the validity of Plaintiff's conviction and sentence and, therefore, the Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Norris v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., No. 2004-07824, 2005 WL 1820027, at *1 (Ohio Ct. Claims July 12, 2005) (citing Norris v. Schotten, 146 F.3d 314, 333 (6th Cir. 1998)).
Norris appealed, and the Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed, holding Norris's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Norris v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., No. 05AP-762, 2006 WL 891023, at *3 (Ohio 10th Dist. April 6, 2006). Specifically, the court held as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial