Higdon v. Scott, No. 1:2018cv02447 - Document 15 (N.D. Ohio 2019)
Court Description: Opinion and Order. For the reasons stated in the Order, The Court hereby OVERRULES Petitioner's Objections (Doc. # 14 ) and adopts the Report and Recommendation in full (Doc. # 12 ). Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition (Doc. # 8 ) is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Petitioners motion for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 9/18/19. (W,CM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Higdon v. Scott Doc. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION THEODORE W. HIDGON, Petitioner v. DAVID W. GRAY, Respondent. ) Case No. 1:18-cv-2447 ) ) Judge Dan Aaron Polster ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ) ) ) ) ) Before the court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp II in the above-entitled action (Doc. # 12). Pending is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Title 28, United States Code section 2254. Respondent has filed an answer/return of writ and has moved to dismiss the petition. In a well-written, thorough opinion, the Magistrate Judge examined each of Petitioner’s thirteen claims for relief and concluded that the Respondent’s motion to dismiss Theodore W. Higdon’s habeas corpus petition be granted on the basis that: 1) the Petitioner has not shown entitlement to equitable tolling; 2) the attached journal articles regarding DNA testing fail to show the Petitioner is actually innocent; and 3) the Petitioner’s conviction was also supported by the victim’s own testimony, and therefore the Petitioner does not satisfy the standard of showing that no reasonable juror would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Petitioner has filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 14). The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and agrees with the conclusions therein. Higdon’s objection still fails to articulate an extraordinary Dockets.Justia.com circumstance, other than difficulty of accessing the law library or reliance on advice of inmate law clerks, that would justify equitably tolling the statute of limitations, and he has failed to explain why he waited 22 months after the state court proceedings concluded to return to federal court. The Court hereby OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. # 14) and adopts the Report and Recommendation in full. Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s motion for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Dan Aaron Polster Sept. 18, 2019___ Dan Aaron Polster United States District Judge 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.
