Johnson v. Warden Allen Correctional Institution
2:20-cv-00785
S.D. OhioApr 27, 2020Background:
- Petitioner Jose Johnson filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction, asserting prosecutorial misconduct and that DNA evidence was falsified or did not meet scientific standards.
- A Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal under the one‑year AEDPA statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
- Johnson objected, arguing his claims were timely and that Ohio courts wrongly denied his post‑conviction motions as untimely and barred by res judicata.
- The district court conducted a de novo review, found the petition untimely even under the most favorable construction (limitations expired no later than Aug. 2018), and noted Johnson filed in Feb. 2020—over a year late.
- The court deferred to the Ohio appellate court’s interpretation of its procedural rules and found no extreme circumstances showing the state court evaded federal review.
- The petition was dismissed, the objection overruled, a certificate of appealability was denied, and appeal in forma pauperis was certified not to be in good faith.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) | Johnson contends his prosecutorial‑misconduct/DNA claims make the petition timely | Petition is barred by AEDPA one‑year limitation; claim accrued earlier and expired by Aug. 2018 | Dismissed as time‑barred; petition filed Feb. 2020 was untimely |
| State post‑conviction procedural rulings (timeliness/res judicata) | Ohio courts improperly denied January/May 2018 motions as untimely/res judicata | State appellate court properly applied its rules; federal court must defer to state‑court interpretations | Federal court bound by state court’s interpretation; no extreme circumstances to warrant relief |
| Deference to state‑court procedural rulings | Johnson argues state procedural rulings should not foreclose federal review of constitutional claims | Federal habeas courts must defer to state courts on state‑law procedural matters absent subterfuge | Court deferred to state court; found no obvious subterfuge or extreme circumstances |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) | Johnson would argue merits or procedural error make appeal debatable | Court: reasonable jurists would not debate timeliness or procedural rulings | COA denied; appeal not in good faith; IFP on appeal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Miskel v. Karnes, 397 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2005) (federal courts defer to state courts’ interpretation of their own procedural rules)
- Bennett v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Inst., 782 F. Supp. 2d 466 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (state courts are final authority on state‑law issues in habeas context)
- Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (Sup. Ct. 1991) (federal habeas courts should not re‑examine state court determinations on state law questions)
- Warner v. Zent, 997 F.2d 116 (6th Cir. 1993) (federal courts should respect state procedural rulings absent subterfuge)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability on procedural rulings)
- Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (standards for substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right)
- Jordan v. Fisher, 135 S. Ct. 2647 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (no automatic right to appeal in habeas; COA required)