Barnard M. Jackson v. Warden, Northeast Ohio Correctional Institution

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00254
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

BARNARD M. JACKSON,

Petitioner, Case No. 3:24-cv-254

v.

WARDEN, Northeast Ohio District Judge Michael J. Newman Correctional Institution, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER: (1) GRANTING PETITIONER’S PRO SE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6) (Doc. No. 29); (2) VACATING THE PRIOR ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. No. 26); (3) VACATING THE JUDGMENT ENTERED AGAINST PETITIONER (Doc. No. 27); (4) FULLY CONSIDERING BUT OVERRULING PETITIONER’S RECENTLY- FILED OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 28); (5) DENYING AND DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. No. 8); (6) DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; (7) CERTIFYING THAT ANY APPEAL WOULD BE OBJECTIVELY FRIVOLOUS AND FINDING THAT IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS SHOULD BE DENIED ON APPEAL; AND (8) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET ______________________________________________________________________________ This is a habeas corpus case brought pro se by Petitioner Barnard M. Jackson pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Previously, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz, to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on September 11, 2025. Doc. No. 25. Objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days after receiving service. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). As of October 6, 2025, twenty-five days after the R&R was docketed in the record, Petitioner had not filed any objections. Consequently, the Court issued an Order adopting the R&R and dismissing the Petition with prejudice, as Judge Merz had recommended. Doc. No. 26. The Clerk of Court docketed the resulting Judgment on October 6, 2025. Doc. No. 27. One day later, on October 7, 2025, Petitioner’s objections arrived by mail in the Clerk of Court’s office and were docketed in the case record. Doc. No. 28. Then, on October 14, 2025,

Petitioner filed a pro se motion for relief from Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), explaining that although he originally sent his objections on September 15, 2025, it was returned to him by the U.S. Postal Service for “insufficient funds.” Doc. No. 29 at PageID 769; see Doc. No. 28 at PageID 766-67. Petitioner then submitted his objections for mailing on September 29, 2025. Doc. No. 29 at 769. Petitioner’s attempt to mail his objections to the Court on September 15, 2025 was timely under the prison mailbox rule, see Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 673 F.3d 452, 456 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Under the prison mailbox rule, a habeas petition is considered filed when the prisoner provides the petition to prison officials for filing”), and his rapid effort to resend his objections to the Court with sufficient postage strongly operates in favor of reaching the merits of his objections. In

addition, reaching the merits of Petitioner’s objections will cause no prejudice to Respondent. For these reasons, Petitioner’s motion for relief from the Court’s prior Order is well taken. Next, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has carefully considered and reviewed the comprehensive findings of Magistrate Judge Merz and has considered de novo all filings in this matter, including Petitioner’s objections, which the Court has liberally construed in his favor, given his pro se status. Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004). Upon careful de novo consideration of the foregoing, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s objections lack merit and that the R&R correctly analyzes the petition and reaches well-reasoned conclusions. See Doc. No. 17 at PageID 922-36; Doc. No. 24 at PageID 979-87. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that (1) Petitioner’s pro se motion for relief from order pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) is GRANTED; (2) the prior Order adopting the Report and Recommendation and dismissing Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is VACATED; (3) the judgment entered against petitioner is VACATED; (4) Judge Merz’s September 11, 2025 Report

and Recommendation is ADOPTED; (5) Petitioner’s recently-filed objections are OVERRULED; (6) Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and (7) Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability. Further, the Court CERTIFIES that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and CONCLUDES that Petitioner should be DENIED in forma pauperis status on appeal. The case is TERMINATED on the docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. October 24, 2025 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge