Bishop v. Warden Noble Correctional Institution
2:24-cv-04063
S.D. OhioMay 19, 2025Background
- Petitioner Bishop filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction for theft/burglary of jewelry while working at the victim's home in Ohio.
- The Magistrate Judge had recommended dismissal based on the statute of limitations, without reaching the merits of Bishop’s habeas claims.
- Bishop filed multiple objections, arguing actual innocence, equitable tolling, and procedural errors, claiming new evidence and constitutional violations.
- Key evidence supporting the conviction included pawn records and surveillance video linking Bishop to the stolen items.
- Bishop alleged newly discovered phone records, pay stubs, and a lawsuit against a witness as exculpatory evidence, but failed to actually produce these records to the court.
- The court reconsidered but re-affirmed that the petition was time-barred and the alleged new evidence did not meet the demanding standard for actual innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of Limitations | Bishop claims actual innocence and new evidence exempt the delay | Warden asserts statute expired; no valid equitable tolling | Petition time-barred; limitations defense stands |
| Actual Innocence Exception | Bishop asserts new evidence (phone records, pay stubs, perjury) shows factual innocence | Warden says alleged evidence either not new, not produced, or only impeaches witnesses | No gateway passed; evidence insufficient for actual innocence |
| Equitable Tolling | Bishop cites COVID-19 and need to exhaust state remedies as reasons for delay | Warden responds these excuses are unpersuasive and not exceptional | Equitable tolling not granted; delay unjustified |
| Certificate of Appealability | Bishop claims ineffective assistance, Brady violations merit an appeal | Warden asserts court never reached merits due to limitations bar | Certificate denied; no debatable legal issue |
Key Cases Cited
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (sets standard for actual innocence gateway to overcome procedural barriers in habeas)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence requires new reliable evidence showing no reasonable juror would convict)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (emphasizes demanding actual innocence standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (requires disclosure of exculpatory evidence)
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (permits stays of habeas petitions pending exhaustion of state remedies)