McCloud v. Warden Doug Luneke
1:24-cv-01523
| N.D. Ohio | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Ronald McCloud was convicted in Ohio state court of receiving stolen property, tampering with evidence, aggravated murder, and felony murder related to the 2005 death of Janet Barnard.
- After various competency and insanity-related proceedings, McCloud was tried by a three-judge panel, found guilty, and sentenced to life without parole in 2011.
- His direct appeal was denied in 2012, and McCloud did not appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.
- Multiple post-conviction motions, including two untimely applications to reopen his appeal and a motion to compel evidence, were denied or dismissed by the state courts.
- In 2024, McCloud filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective counsel, and judicial error, along with motions for a stay and summary judgment which were also denied.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the habeas petition as untimely under AEDPA’s 1-year statute of limitations, finding no grounds for statutory or equitable tolling, including actual innocence.
Issues
| Issue | McCloud's Argument | Luneke's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas petition was timely filed | July 2024 petition is timely due to reopened or extended appeals | Petition filed more than 10 years after AEDPA deadline; untimely | Petition is untimely |
| Statutory/equitable tolling applies | Delays attributable to ineffective appellate counsel, mental health, and ignorance of law | McCloud did not act diligently, filings far outside deadlines | No tolling warranted; lack of diligence or extraordinary cause |
| Actual innocence exception to timeliness | Claims "newly discovered evidence" shows actual innocence | No specific or new evidence provided, only trial material and media | No credible claim of actual innocence; exception not established |
| Entitlement to a stay of proceedings | Stay needed to return to state court with new evidence | No mixed petition; no identified unexhausted claims or good cause | Motion for stay denied |
| Summary judgment for procedural default | Respondent defaulted by not filing a Return of Writ | Timely filed motion to dismiss allowed, no default occurred | Summary judgment denied; Respondent responded appropriately |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (requirement to exhaust state remedies before federal habeas)
- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (federal habeas petition must not be mixed with unexhausted claims)
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (circumstances under which stay and abeyance for mixed habeas petitions is appropriate)
- Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (statutory tolling under AEDPA, pendency of state collateral review)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (standards for equitable tolling of AEDPA limitations)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (actual innocence as an exception to AEDPA's statute of limitations)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (actual innocence requires new, reliable evidence)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (actual innocence means factual, not just legal, innocence)