Peace v. LaRose

N.D. Ohio

Peace v. LaRose

DecidedFebruary 18, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-01034

StatusUnknown

This text of Peace v. LaRose (Peace v. LaRose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peace v. LaRose, (N.D. Ohio 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

TARA TEMPERANCE PEACE, ) Case No. 3:19 CV 1034 a.k.a, Todd E. Peace ) ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT ) vs. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ ) ) CHRISTOPHER LaROSE, Warden ) ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Defendant. ) )

This matter comes before this Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz. The Report and Recommendation (ECF #10), issued on January 23, 2020, is hereby ADOPTED by this Court. Petitioner filed this action requesting a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This was Petitioner’s second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent filed a motion to transfer the petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis that the present petition constitutes a second or successive petition, which must first be considered by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF #8). Petitioner did not oppose Respondent’s motion. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Petitioner’s claim be transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration as a second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The Sixth Circuit has held that a habeas petition is a “second” petition “when it raises a claim that could have been raised in the first petition but was not so raised, either due to deliberate abandonment or inexcusable neglect.” Jn re Bowen, 43 F.3d 699, 704 (6th Cir. 2006). The Magistrate

Judge found that Petitioner’s present habeas claims trial-level errors that could have been raised ir the first petition and does not fall under any applicable exception. Objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation were due by February 6, 2020 Neither party filed any objections. The Court reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation see Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Seven Hills, 35 F. Supp. 2d 575, 577 (N.D. Ohio 1999), anc ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Respondent’s Motion to Transfer is. therefore, GRANTED. (ECF #8). IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONALD C. NUGENT | Senior United States District Judge

DATE: Uns | LoLo

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

TARA TEMPERANCE PEACE, ) Case No. 3:19 CV 1034 a.k.a, Todd E. Peace ) ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT ) vs. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ ) ) CHRISTOPHER LaROSE, Warden ) ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Defendant. ) )

This matter comes before this Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz. The Report and Recommendation (ECF #10), issued on January 23, 2020, is hereby ADOPTED by this Court. Petitioner filed this action requesting a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This was Petitioner’s second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Respondent filed a motion to transfer the petition to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis that the present petition constitutes a second or successive petition, which must first be considered by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF #8). Petitioner did not oppose Respondent’s motion. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Petitioner’s claim be transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration as a second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The Sixth Circuit has held that a habeas petition is a “second” petition “when it raises a claim that could have been raised in the first petition but was not so raised, either due to deliberate abandonment or inexcusable neglect.” Jn re Bowen, 43 F.3d 699, 704 (6th Cir. 2006). The Magistrate

Judge found that Petitioner’s present habeas claims trial-level errors that could have been raised ir the first petition and does not fall under any applicable exception. Objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation were due by February 6, 2020 Neither party filed any objections. The Court reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation see Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Seven Hills, 35 F. Supp. 2d 575, 577 (N.D. Ohio 1999), anc ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Respondent’s Motion to Transfer is. therefore, GRANTED. (ECF #8). IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONALD C. NUGENT | Senior United States District Judge

DATE: Uns | LoLo

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Peace v. LaRose, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peace-v-larose-ohnd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack