Hoffner v. Bradshaw, No. 3:2005cv00687 - Document 106 (N.D. Ohio 2016)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/26/16 denying petitioner's motion for authorization for habeas counsel to conduct state court litigation. (Related Docs. 103 , 104 , and 105 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hoffner v. Bradshaw Doc. 106 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: TIMOTHY HOFFNER, : : Petitioner, : : vs. : : MARARET BRADSHAW : Warden, : : Respondent. : : ------------------------------------------------------- CASE NO. 05-CV-00687 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Docs. 103, 104, 105] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On January 6, 2006, Petitioner Timothy Hoffner filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2554.1 On July 23, 2008, this Court denied Petitioner Hoffner’s petition.2 On September 6, 2016, Petitioner moved this Court to authorize and fund Petitioner’s forthcoming state court litigation attacking his conviction.3 Apparently, the Petitioner plans to file a motion to reopen his direct appeal under Ohio App. R. 26(B) and a successive state postconviction petition under Ohio. Rev. Code Ann. § 2953.23.4 Petitioner argues that he is entitled to federally-funded counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(e) to pursue his post-conviction state court proceedings. But § 3599 “does not authorize federal funding for this type of proceeding.”5 Where a federal habeas proceeding has concluded—as it has here—and Petitioner pursues “the commencement of new judicial proceedings,” § 3599 does 1 Doc. 29. Doc. 87. Defendant’s appeal to the Sixth Circuit and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court were both denied. Docs. 93, 96. 3 Doc. 103. Respondent opposed. Doc. 104. Petitioner replied. Doc. 105. 4 Doc. 103 at 3. 5 Irick v. Bell, 636 F.3d 289, 292 (6th Cir. 2011). 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 05-cv-00687 Gwin, J. not apply.6 Especially when the State of Ohio provides compensation for persons representing indigent defendants in state post-conviction proceedings. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for authorization for habeas counsel to conduct state court litigation is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 26, 2016 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 Id; see also Hill v. Anderson, No. 4:96 CV 00795, 2014 WL 2882905, at *2 (N.D. Ohio June 25, 2014) (denying a request for § 3599 funding where the court had “ruled on [Petitioner’s habeas] claims” and the habeas “petition [was] no longer within [the] Court’s jurisdiction”). -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
