Laura E. Amero v. Erin Maldonado, Warden, Ohio Reformatory for Women, 2:25-cv-00983

Petitioner Laura Amero filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, with counsel; an amended petition followed Rule 4 screening.
The court applied Bell Atlantic–Iqbal standards to determine if the petition states a federal claim, and ultimately found the amended petition insufficient.
Ground One challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences as unsupported by Ohio law and as violating due process and the requirement of jury fact-finding for consecutive terms.
Ground Two argues that the Ohio Supreme Court’s denial of review and its equal-protection implications render a denial of appellate review unlawful, citing disparate treatment with State v. Polizzi.
The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the amended petition with prejudice, denying a certificate of appealability, and certifying that any appeal would be frivolous; the order is dated September 18, 2025.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consecutive sentences and due process	Amero contends consecutive sentencing violated due process and jury-fact requirements.	Maldonado argues federal review is limited to constitutional—not state-law, and Ice controls on jury participation for consecutive sentences.	Ground One is dismissed; no federal due-process violation found.
Equal protection in Ohio Supreme Court review	Amero asserts denial of equal protection due to Ohio Supreme Court’s handling of Polizzi review.	Maldonado contends no viable equal-protection claim given lack of discriminatory basis and discretionary review.	Ground Two is dismissed; no cognizable equal-protection violation shown.

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1991) (federal habeas review limited to constitutional violations; state-law questions not cognizable)
Ice v. Oregon, 555 U.S. 160 (U.S. 2009) (consecutive sentencing does not require jury findings under Apprendi framework)
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (U.S. 1999) (exhaustion of state remedies required in habeas corpus)
Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (U.S. 1997) (equal protection constraints and rational basis/strict scrutiny framework)
Oyele v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1962) (illustrates selective enforcement considerations under equal protection)