Opinion
CASE NO. 1:14CV1708
07-27-2015
Carlton R. Logan, Petitioner, v. Bennie Kelley, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
This action is before the Court upon objections filed by Petitioner Carlton R. Logan, asserting error in the Report and Recommendation ("the R&R") of the Magistrate Judge. The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 11) in its entirety. The Petition is DENIED AND DISMISSED.
Where objections are made to a magistrate judge's R&R this Court must:
must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court has reviewed de novo the R&R as it relates to Logan's objections. The objections lack merit.
Logan raises three objections, first asserting that the R&R erred in finding that his petition was untimely. Specifically, Logan contends that the R&R disposed of his arguments for equitable tolling without fully analyzing the facts surrounding his argument. The Court finds no merit in this contention. The R&R properly lays out the law surrounding equitable tolling, and Logan has not identified any error in the law relied upon by the R&R. Furthermore, the R&R properly notes that Logan's lengthy history of filings in state and federal court have one common theme --- they are consistently untimely. Those facts alone support the R&R's conclusion that Logan's case does not warrant equitable tolling. Logan's first objection, therefore, is overruled.
Logan next contends that the R&R misapprehended his second ground for relief. Specifically, Logan contends that his real challenge revolved around whether the state court properly gained jurisdiction over his body through a proper writ. Logan asserts that the R&R misread his argument and instead addressed the issue of dual sovereignty. Logan, however, ignores that the R&R properly noted that he raised the issue regarding the writ for the first time in his traverse (see R&R at 13, n.5). The R&R further properly found that Logan could not raise such an issue for the first time in his traverse. As such, the R&R did not err when it failed to address Logan's arguments surrounding whether a proper writ was issued to place him within the jurisdiction of the state court.
Finally, Logan argues that the R&R erred when it found that his challenge to jail time credit was not cognizable in habeas. A state court's alleged misinterpretation of state sentencing guidelines and crediting statutes is a matter of state concern only. Howard v. White, 76 Fed. App'x 52, 53 (6th Cir. 2003). Claims challenging whether and/or how much jail credit is applied to state sentences under state law are a matter of state law and not cognizable on federal habeas review. See Kipen v. Renico, 65 Fed. App'x 958, 959 (6th Cir. 2003) ("[T]he actual computation of [a petitioner's] prison term involves a matter of state law that is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.") "'[F]ederal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.'" Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (quoting Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780, (1990)). Despite Logan's objections to the contrary, his challenges to the state court's application of Ohio Revised Code § 2967.191 do not raise a constitutional claim and therefore are not cognizable in his untimely habeas petition.
Logan's objections are overruled. The R&R is adopted, and the petition is hereby DENIED AND DISMISSED. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. There is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 27, 2015
/s/ John R . Adams
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT