Rice v. Warden

• Decision Date: 09 September 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:14-cv-732
• Parties: LIAL RICE, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, PICKAWAY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

LIAL RICE, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, PICKAWAY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,¹ Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-732

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

September 9, 2015

Dlott, J.

Litkovitz, M.J.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See Doc. 15). It appears from the face of the petition that petitioner is challenging his 2014 conviction and one-year prison sentence imposed by the Butler County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas in Case No. CR2013-09-1450. (Id., at PAGEID#: 94; see also Doc. 27, at PAGEID#: 265). Petitioner has also filed numerous other pleadings, "objections" and notices, which are difficult to decipher and, for the most part, incomprehensible. (See Docs. 17, 18, 20, 24, 28, 29, 31, 32). Respondent has submitted the state court record and a return of writ responding to the petition. (Docs. 26-27). Respondent has also responded to some of petitioner's additional submissions. (Docs. 21, 25, 30). It appears from the record that thismatter is now ripe for final disposition of petitioner's claims challenging his conviction and sentence in Butler County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR2013-09-1450.²

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

State Trial Proceeding

In September 2013, the Butler County grand jury returned the indictment in Case No. CR2013-09-1450. (Doc. 26, Ex. 3). The indictment charged petitioner with two third-degree felony counts of tampering with records in violation of Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2913.42(A)(2), (B)(4). (Id.). The prosecuting attorney filed a "Bill of Particulars," which provided the following summary of the facts giving rise to the two charges:

On November 22, 2010 the Defendant was given a Butler County Child Enforcement Agency Receipt Number 010568 (a government record) for the agency's receipt of the Defendant's 'new employer' information. On May 21, 2013 the Defendant took the original receipt No. 010568 that was altered to read a different year and to indicate that the receipt was issued showing a payment of $2,000,000.00 to the Child Support Enforcement Agency and Defendant filed the tampered government record as altered with his Objection to Magistrate Order in the Butler County Juvenile Court on May 21, 2013.

On January 31, 2012 the Defendant was given a Butler County Child Enforcement Agency Receipt Number 790396 (a government record) for papers provided in relation to his case. On May 21, 2013 the Defendant took the original receipt No. 790396 that was altered to read as showing a $25 million dollar payment to the Butler County Child Support Enforcement Agency [and] filed the tampered government record as altered with his Objection to Magistrate Order in the Butler County Juvenile Court on May 21, 2013.

(Id., Ex. 2, at PAGEID#: 226).

In January 2014, petitioner entered a guilty plea to a reduced fourth-degree felony charge in Count 1 of attempted tampering with records. (See id., Ex. 5; see also Doc. 27, at PAGEID#: 266). The written plea agreement that was executed by the parties and filed with the trial court on January 8, 2014 included the following additional terms of agreement: ''Merge Count 2. State will not pursue any charges related to Defendant's incarceration [that] occurred prior to the date of this plea." (Doc. 26, Ex. 5, at PAGEID#: 232). The agreement further provided that petitioner faced a maximum 18-month prison sentence and an "optional" 3-year term of post-release control for the attempted tampering with records offense. (Id., at PAGEID#: 231).

At the plea hearing held on January 7, 2014, the prosecuting attorney, defense counsel and petitioner clarified and confirmed their understanding of the terms of the parties' plea agreement as follows:

[T]he Defendant has agreed to an attempted tampering with a government record under Count I and the State has agreed to merge Count II.

In addition, the agreement includes the fact that the State has received documentations from the Butler County Sheriff's Department of an alleged forgery Mr. Rice committed on a form indicating that he was to be released on an OR bond. The State has agreed not to pursue charges related to that specific incident while in custody.

(Id., Plea Hearing Tr. 2, at PAGEID#: 241). The trial court then proceeded to conduct an in-depth colloquy with petitioner, which included the granting of additional time to petitioner to privately consult with his counsel, to ensure that petitioner was entering his guilty plea knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. (See id., Plea Hearing Tr. 2-14, at PAGEID#: 241-53). Following that colloquy, the trial court accepted petitioner's guilty plea, convicted petitioner of the reduced charge in Count 1 of attempted tampering with records, and scheduled a sentencing hearing for February 12, 2014. (Id., Ex. 5, at PAGEID#: 232; Plea Hearing Tr. 14, at PAGEID#: 253-54).

The sentencing hearing was held as scheduled on February 12, 2014. Thereafter, on February 14, 2014, the trial court issued a "Judgment Of Conviction Entry" sentencing petitioner to a 12-month prison term with credit for 116 days of time served and notifying petitioner that he was subject to an "optional" term of post-release control "up to a maximum of three (3) years." (Id., Ex. 1).

State Post-Conviction Proceedings

Respondent states in the return of writ that petitioner did not pursue an appeal from his conviction or sentence in the state courts. (Doc. 27, at PAGEID#: 267). On April 30, 2014, petitioner filed a pro se motion for judicial release with the trial court in Case No. CR2013-09-1450 and another Butler County case cited as "CR201394450."³ (Doc. 26, Ex. 6). The motion was denied without opinion on May 2, 2014. (Id., Ex. 7). Respondent states in the return of writ that petitioner did not pursue an appeal from that decision in the state courts. (Doc. 27, at PAGEID#: 268).

Federal Habeas Corpus Petition

Petitioner commenced the instant habeas action in September 2014. (See Doc. 1). In his signed petition filed in compliance with orders issued September 23, 2014 and December 9, 2014 (see Docs. 2, 11), petitioner alleges the following grounds for relief, which are quoted verbatim from the petition:⁴

Ground One: [C]ha[n]ged my social security number Chief Melesa Adam Head Leagel Julia Kewpher of BOSCO-BORM with out the court permission or [L]ialW. Rice Child Austion Lee Brown Li[a]l W. Rice Is Paying on Have payment History Attorney City of Hamilton Gernld Pater Pater Helervson . . . Mark [C]onsea . . . [C]hief [P]ower . . . sister [C]heryle [L]ist . . . Becky [C]onrad . . . Joe [C]onrad.

Ground Two: Paper work. Attorneys can su[bpoen]a for witness Jerry Pater. . . Chief Andrew Powers. . . . Self-explain it self both cases. Do.

Ground Three: Lock up in prison.

Ground Four: Paper work. Wrongful Incarceration. BOSCO changed my social security no. False Imprisonment. Child Austin Lee Brown does not exist. Rack[e]teering. Fed[er]al.

(Doc. 15. at PAGEID#: 98, 99, 101, 102).

In the return of writ filed in response to the petition, respondent contends that the petition is subject to dismissal for a number of reasons, including petitioner's failure to comply with Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; lack of subject matter jurisdiction over claims pertaining to prison conditions; petitioner's procedural default and waiver of his claims for relief; and petitioner's lack of entitlement to relief in light of his guilty plea that was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered. (See Doc. 27).

II. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE BECAUSE PETITIONER HAS NOT STATED A COGNIZABLE GROUND FOR HABEAS RELIEF

In his petition, petitioner has presented claims that are largely, if not completely. unintelligible and incomprehensible. As a threshold matter, as respondent has argued in the return of writ, the petition is subject to dismissal because petitioner has not stated a claim for relief that satisfies the pleading requirements for habeas petitions set forth in Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Habeas Rule 2(c) provides that the petition must "specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner" and "state the facts supporting each ground." See also Flood v. Phillips, 90 F.App'x 108, 113 (6th Cir. 2004). The rule is even "more demanding" than Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), which requires in "ordinary civil proceedings" that the complaint "provide 'fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655-56 (2005) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); see also McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 860 (1994) (O'Connor, J., concurring in part) ("the habeas petition, unlike a complaint, must allege the factual underpinnings of the petitioner's claims"). "'Notice' pleading is insufficient in the habeas context, as the petitioner is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional error." Johnson v. Sheldon, No. 3:14cvl675, 2015 WL 3650695, at *2 (N.D. Ohio June 11, 2015) (citing Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977); Lloyd v. Van Natta, 296 F.3d 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2002)); see also Advisory Committee Note to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (citing Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)).

Dismissal under Habeas Rule 2(c) is appropriate in cases such as this where the petition and accompanying documents, as well as petitioner's additional pleadings and notices, contain "so many unintelligible and conclusory allegations and statements" that it is impossible for the Court to determine "the exact errors of fact or law" that have been raised for adjudication or even whether petitioner's stated grounds for relief pertain to anything that occurred in the challenged Butler County criminal...