Foster v. Warden, Toledo Correctional Institution
1:15-cv-00713
S.D. OhioNov 17, 2016Background
- Petitioner Christopher Foster is incarcerated at Southern Ohio Correctional Facility and filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his detention for felonious assault.
- Foster raised four grounds: (1) Fourteenth Amendment due process/equal protection violations; (2) Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure/search and defective charging/warrants; (3) violations of international treaties and law; (4) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and a purported nunc pro tunc (retroactive) sentencing entry.
- Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing many claims are not cognizable on habeas or are procedurally defaulted and that state-law challenges (e.g., nunc pro tunc entry) are not federal habeas claims.
- Foster filed multiple motions (to strike, for default judgment, and addressing confinement conditions), reiterating the nunc pro tunc and judgment-invalidity theories; the court denied those motions.
- The magistrate judge found Foster’s federal habeas claims legally deficient: Fourth Amendment claims are limited by Stone v. Powell; treaty claims are not enforceable in habeas; subject-matter jurisdiction in Ohio Common Pleas was proper; claims alleging facially invalid state judgments raise state-law issues not cognizable on federal habeas.
- Recommendation: grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss, dismiss the petition with prejudice, deny a certificate of appealability, and certify any appeal as frivolous for in forma pauperis purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fourteenth Amendment violations were alleged and cognizable | Foster contends his imprisonment violates due process/equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional | Respondent says Foster makes only conclusory assertions and points to state-law sentencing issues not cognizable on habeas | Court: Foster’s Fourteenth Amendment claim is conclusory and insufficient; state-law sentencing defects are not federal habeas grounds |
| Whether Fourth Amendment claim is cognizable on habeas | Foster alleges unlawful detention based on defective warrants/charging documents | Respondent invokes Stone v. Powell limiting habeas review where full and fair state-court litigation occurred and argues municipal charging docs were superseded by indictment | Court: Fourth Amendment claim unclear and likely barred by Stone when adequately litigated in state court |
| Whether international treaties provide enforceable habeas rights | Foster relies on various international instruments (e.g., torture covenant, ICCPR, OAS Declaration) to challenge detention | Respondent argues those instruments do not create individual federal habeas rights enforceable in this proceeding | Court: Treaty and international-law claims do not create cognizable federal habeas rights here |
| Whether state court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction / nunc pro tunc entry invalidates confinement | Foster asserts Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction and that a nunc pro tunc entry retroactively altered his conviction status | Respondent notes Ohio Common Pleas are courts of general jurisdiction and record shows a valid trial and judgment; nunc pro tunc allegation is a state-law issue | Court: Common Pleas had jurisdiction; nunc pro tunc/state-law sentencing disputes are not federal habeas claims; dismissal recommended |
Key Cases Cited
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (habeas courts limited to state-court record for evidentiary hearings)
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (limits habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims where full and fair state-court opportunity existed)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (federal habeas not a vehicle to reexamine state-law determinations)
- Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1 (2010) (federal habeas relief limited to correcting federal constitutional violations)
- Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (1990) (standards for federal habeas review of state convictions)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (federal habeas scope regarding state proceedings)
- Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (1983) (limits on federal habeas review of state convictions)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (appellate consequences for failing to object to magistrate recommendations)
- United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (procedural forfeiture principles when objections to magistrate rulings are not timely)